CASR Part 61 Question and Answers

[Biggles]

Hi fellow Slappers

Sussan Ley the Health Minister, according to her on line bio, holds a commercial fixed wing licence, was once an air traffic controller and aerial musterer.

Surely she can't be blind to the CASA mess.......

B

[arrrj]

AS350 flight training -

Gents, (CYHeli ?)

Clarification required please.

I want to fly the Squirrel, and do not have an "old" endorsement. I do have endorsements (old scheme) for other turbine machines (and indeed piston).

My local school have advised I require the following - a) 3 hour endorsement training and b) a full HFR in the Squirrel...either done on the same day or separate days.

My understanding is that under the new rules I can fly any SEH machine, (sorry, I have forgotten the exact wording) as long as I am confident with the machine and have had some sort of training.

Let me be clear, I do intend to be trained properly to fly this machine (and indeed any other type that I have not flown), however the prescriptive nature of what I have been told conflicts with my understanding of the new flight training requirements.

What's the real story ?

Thanks in advance,
Arrrj

[havick]

Just out of curiosity which school told you this?

[oldrotorhead]

What you need to do is to fulfil the requirements of CASR 61.385 for starters (ie the General Competency Rule). You need to find an appropriately qualified instructor who will train you until he deems you competent. That's it. It may take 3 hours or more or less. There is no separate Flight Test or Flight Review required and CASA does not need to be told that you are now "endorsed" (old speak) on the AS350. No paperwork at all needs to be sent to CASA. In fact, the only time they may find out about your AS350 "qualification" is if you subsequently do some other proficiency check or flight review on that aircraft down the track. The instructor will have to keep training records of what he's done with you for 7 years but that's his problem. I would personally be asking him to give me a copy of them if I were you.
All this assumes of course that you are the holder of a SEH Class rating with a GTE endorsement. The training does not have to be done at a Part 141 or 142 "School"
The CASA website is actually your friend and they have good "information sheets" on there which are very informative.
Cheers,
ORH

[froginasock]

What you need to do is to fulfil the requirements of CASR 61.385 for starters (ie the General Competency Rule). You need to find an appropriately qualified instructor who will train you until he deems you competent. That's it. It may take 3 hours or more or less. There is no separate Flight Test or Flight Review required and CASA does not need to be told that you are now "endorsed" (old speak) on the AS350. No paperwork at all needs to be sent to CASA. In fact, the only time they may find out about your AS350 "qualification" is if you subsequently do some other proficiency check or flight review on that aircraft down the track. The instructor will have to keep training records of what he's done with you for 7 years but that's his problem. I would personally be asking him to give me a copy of them if I were you.
All this assumes of course that you are the holder of a SEH Class rating with a GTE endorsement. The training does not have to be done at a Part 141 or 142 "School"
The CASA website is actually your friend and they have good "information sheets" on there which are very informative.
Cheers,
ORH

Not quite .. A Flight Review form is filled out and sent to CASA for any new 'type' within that class. There is no test - but the appropriately qualified instructor conducts a Flight Review to deem you competent - fills in the FR form and sends it in. In that way CASA does have a record of it, your school has a record and your log book has a record of the training.

It's just nothing is printed on your licence - apart from SEH

Edit .. The type is part of the SEH class .. but it's still a type.

[oldrotorhead]

You're probably right but that is quite at odds with CASA's blurb they published the other day.
Cheers,
ORH

[Imout]

It can be confusing unless you read all the documents (and then try to find them again that's the challenge)
If you have a SEH class rating and a GTE (Gas Turbine Engine design feature) then you simply have to do training with an instructor until you are competent for a new type. This is determined by the instructor but 3 hours is not a bad start based on legacy rules.

CASA have produced a list of helicopters that are within the class that then require a Flight Review after completing training for the first time to add it to the class. A copy of the FR notification must be sent to CASA within 14 days so they have a record of you conducting the training and being deemed competent by an approved person (instructor) and I would also note the FR on your Part 61 licence.
The list I have in DRAFT format but have no idea where to find it now. Perhaps Cyheli can help there.

In the fixed wing world not ALL aircraft require a FR to be able to fly after conducing type training. Only a select few do (the complicated ones) hence the confusion for helicopter guys who are just getting to understand the new rules (add me to the list)
In the helicopter world ALL helicopters require a FR to be able to fly after conducing type training as ALL helicopters are on the list.

Once the helicopter has been added to the class then in the future you only need to do one FR in one of the helicopters within the class to cover you off for all helicopters within the class (except the R22 and R44 which require their own FR - either or in this case)

So do the training until competent.
Do a FR and send the notification into CASA
Note the FR on the Part 61 license

Any further takers on the process??

[Ben Geaney]

What you need to do is to fulfil the requirements of CASR 61.385 for starters (ie the General Competency Rule). You need to find an appropriately qualified instructor who will train you until he deems you competent. That's it. It may take 3 hours or more or less. There is no separate Flight Test or Flight Review required and CASA does not need to be told that you are now "endorsed" (old speak) on the AS350. No paperwork at all needs to be sent to CASA. In fact, the only time they may find out about your AS350 "qualification" is if you subsequently do some other proficiency check or flight review on that aircraft down the track. The instructor will have to keep training records of what he's done with you for 7 years but that's his problem. I would personally be asking him to give me a copy of them if I were you.
All this assumes of course that you are the holder of a SEH Class rating with a GTE endorsement. The training does not have to be done at a Part 141 or 142 "School"
The CASA website is actually your friend and they have good "information sheets" on there which are very informative.
Cheers,
ORH

Two questions -
Where does it state that the training can be conducted by an instructor independent of a part 141 or 142 school, as I have been told the exact opposite. The way I have been explained is that the independent instructor can carry out a flight review, but can not give the training part without being under a school?
And secondly, who is conducting GTE courses, and how is CASA notified that someone has undertaken this?
Regards,
Ben

[arrrj]

Mike,

Thanks for the clarification !

No wonder know one really understands it, if you are also confused, then I feel a bit happier and not quite so thick.

I will do my 3 hours (makes sense to me as well) and discuss the requirement for a FR, I did ask one of the instructors, not the boss, so he may have been (also !) confused by what is required.

That said, I did like the "old days", when you could do an endorsement on a new machine and that would do you for your BFR. The cost was effectively halved.

Arrrj

PS _ Havick...I don't want to dump on the school...they are very competent and always look after me. I suspect that they are just as confused as the rest of the industry. We will all have to work it out together.

[CYHeli]

For a new aircraft make /.model (endorsement) requires training and a flight review.
The reg is 61.747 and the instrument that lists the aircraft types is in Schedule 14.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00013
All training for this would be done under a Part 141 for single pilot and single engine helicopters. (And some twins, see seperate instrument)

[Imout]

No change, as far as I am aware as long as the person doing the FR is also able to do the SEH FR then they can be done concurrently, it is all a matter of completing the right paper work and ticking of the required elements.

[oldrotorhead]

G'day all. Please disregard my original post on this thread as I had it arse about. CY is right on the money with the reg. reference. I have to say the current requirement was always my view also until they put out that bloody info doc on 61.385 the other day which doesn't actually apply to "aircraft" as it states but only to certain SEA.....
Cheers,
OR (Retirement looks great)H

[Robinsondog]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. would it be possible to present two graphics CY, maybe as a photograph of it shown on a white board.?

one of which shows the simple old system following a pilot from start to multi endorsements with two yearly F/R's, and one for the new system of the same and including the F/R's now required.

I just can't seem to get my head around all of these posts, supposedly explaining it.

[froginasock]

I did some flow charts for work on this in September last year for our guys/gals to make sense of it all and provide info to clients/students ... (including R22/44 L/L types & tests of the time upo to MECIR) .. but it's changed and changed and changed again .. and will probably change again.

The problem is that an image or flow chart(s) will go around the traps and something will change again - but - the previous information will be taken as gospel and incorrect info potentially given out as those 'graphics' hang around for 6-12 months.

The old system didn't really change for years - and now we have to check for new instruments every Monday to see if we're giving correct advice.

The best current graphic would be one of a slow-mo train wreck of the training world.

[heliflyer1]

G'day all

Does anyone know why for a Low Level Rating that aircraft handling above 3000 feet AGL has to be tested?

Found it on form 61-1507 http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regulate ... 1-1507.pdf

MOS Ref: LL-H.3

[froginasock]

G'day all

Does anyone know why for a Low Level Rating that aircraft handling above 3000 feet AGL has to be tested?

Found it on form 61-1507 http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regulate ... 1-1507.pdf

MOS Ref: LL-H.3

Yes ... because it was cut and paste from a military low flying syllabus for aeroplanes where they practice in the 'upper air' before descending and manoeuvring low level.

If you read more into it you'll also see where they require the PERFORMANCE of 'low level blade or rotor 'stall' recovery (they just cut/paste and change 'stall recovery' to 'blade stall recovery') ...

You'd end up discussing the outcome at the crash scene ...

.. & cruise speed 60 degree AoB level turns (uh - there's better techniques and smarter speeds to operate at, rather than perform a 2'G' disc loading at tree top and 90 or 110 knots (R22/44) ???) ... we don't generally fly low level at 'cruise speed - but an aeroplane kinda needs to) ...

... and a variety of other things that will get you killed in a helicopter at low level.

Basically it clearly wasn't written by a helicopter pilot - rather someone lazyish who just copied the RAAF Pearce low level syllabus (MOS) and tried to make it sound helicopterish.

Just another example of ensuring efficient admin (meeting timeframes or key performance indicators) as a priority over safety outcomes .. or actual knowledge of helicopter operations?

[Imout]

There are changes in the wind to correct all of these anomalies.
Proposals are being considered now so don't stress about them yet.

[Robinsondog]

Basically it clearly wasn't written by a helicopter pilot - rather someone lazyish who just copied the RAAF Pearce low level syllabus (MOS) and tried to make it sound helicopterish.

There are changes in the wind to correct all of these anomalies.
Proposals are being considered now so don't stress about them yet.

Reading about recovering a Helicopter blades that stall, makes me think that the best change might be to get a helicopter expert in first up to rewrite the whole deal..

I think I have only ever heard of one helicopter type that can sustain a stalled rotor at RPM and that type was military and went out of service a long time ago.

[Yankee]

Hmmm...

Interesting reading. I know for a Part 135 operation in the US you're required to do Ground School for that ACFT, then flight training. I think the minimum is 1 hour. and every calendar year you're required to do another Part 135 check ride

[hand in pants]

Mike, you say there are changes in the wind and not to stress about it. Mate, I'm stressed to buggery over this, they changed the rules, even when the industry said that they required more work and there were obvious problems. There was and still is, little or no education, for us or their own people, we have to rely on Slapper to get up to date opinions on what the new rules mean and require, and that changes weekly.
They wrote Part 61 full of mistakes/confusion/ambiguous lawyer speak, then they made it law, then they started to change it all again. Why aren't the authors of this rubbish being taken to account.
And they claim safety is being enhanced, utter crap.
And they claim we are coming into line with the European laws, utter crap.
No cost impost to the industry, utter crap. Who is going to pay for my now 4 HFR's instead of one. Who is going to pay for the extra flying I'll need to maintain the now required currencies for low level/sling/fire/nvfr (single and twin), not Mr Skidmore or his mates or the brain dead author of Part 61. And I bet said author doesn't fly either aeroplanes or helicopters.
The industry needs the regulator to help move forward, smoothly, not throw up road blocks and moving goal posts to try to stop us from making a living.
Without us, they are not required.