Part 61 - For Dummies.

You’re a brave man Thorny – I asked how he liked 61 and have not heard language like that in a long while.  Did you know “K” has at least one swear word for each letter of the alphabet and he can curse, fluently in five languages – he can; heard him do it.  Last time it was that bloody fool Wabbit that kicked him off.  But reading the 61 posts, he seems quite sanguine at the moment; he loves a puzzle and that Part 61 is probably getting seen to, like it has never been seen to before.  So long as it amuses and intrigues, we are all fairly safe; but a side bet for you, my two pints say that at the next BRB he will have a printed copy of 61, tied in a ribbon and it will be binned, with much ceremony and hilarity.  You missed the McConvict despatch ‘do’.  Stuff of legend.

Wink ... Smile ... Big Grin

Tom old mate, I'm well aware of our boatman's linguistic (and editing) skill, having been on the receiving end, on an occasion or three.  He is a demon after all.

But he is unique in his ability to see past the Pony Poo and lay bare the truth of it all.
I've been nudging him for ages to gird his loins and tear this crap apart. I've been through it about eight times and have to admit I am no closer to having the slightest clue what it is about than when I first read it, despite all the "advisory" material and numerous CAsA briefings, let alone how I'm supposed to comply with it.

"Compliance" once again will reside in the opinion of the FOI of the day,nothings changed, just go worse.

The boatman's brilliance will hopefully spotlight the deficiencies of part 61, and make everyones life somewhat easier.

Instruments of tortured schedules.

Best down load – HERE.

Part 61 : MoS: Vol 1 :  Legislative Instrument. 

Page 2 – Section  8 Units of competency. etc.

Sub section 8.1 [for] each of the following matters are as set out in the Appendix of a Section in Schedule 1.

Let’s have a shufti at 8.1.(a) as an example

Quote:(a) a flight crew licence with an aircraft category rating, a flight crew rating on a licence, or an endorsement on a rating; etc.

To do this we need to have the appropriate ‘schedule’ open at the same time so Schedule 1 is mentioned in which are defined the required the ‘units of competency’.  

WARNING - I am lucky, there are three screens on my desk – I can open Scheds 1 and 2 and keep this document visible; if you are trying to work on one small screen, get some anger management training.

Our example 8.1.(a) is ‘an appendix mentioned’ and 8.2 says that each unit of competency of the ‘practical’ standards is identified by a unique code.  So switch to Sched 1 and find our 8.1 (a) in the index (aircraft category rating) – we want multi engine.  Section 'L' looks promising; L4  - multi engine ‘class’ rating, go to page 36.   You can see the table of ‘Practical flight standards’; in the left column ‘unit code’, in the right ‘unit of competency’.  Unit code A1 has caught my attention, for a number of ‘practical’ reasons, which we will come back to later. 

So, what does A1 involve, well its Control aeroplane on the ground.   Now if you bring up Sched 2 (Competency standards) the index takes you Section 4, at page 110 the ‘elements’ and associated rubbish.  Here is where the first of the wheels on your wagon falls off; to understand why, we must ‘park’ this exercise here as there is a long road to travel before we can examine the practical flaws and operational dangers inherent in the system.  Before we get to them, there are other ‘Schedules’ we must consider.     

Schedule 3 : Aeronautical knowledge.  Maybe someone can assist, I cannot find a section which defines the ‘purpose of the schedules; 3 for example – are you expected to be able to answer questions on the units? are they part of an examination syllabus ?; or are they areas that must be known before the rating or licence may be issued - don’t know (yet), not with certainty – put that on hold; more head scratching required. 

Schedule 4 : Flight Crew Licence. Etc.. At first meeting the ‘sched’ seems innocuous enough as it sets down the prescribed requirements for various licences; as there is some discussion, particularly relating to ATPL, we shall set this aside for the moment as it seems to reflect little or no change to ‘requirements’.

Schedule 5 : Flight test standards.  Here again although ‘micro managed’, highly subjective and pedantic, essentially, without actual practical reporting on how it all pans out – in real life – we can set this aside for detailed examination later. (Won’t that be fun).

Schedule 6 : Proficiency check standards. Index of codes.  I have, for my sins, read many manuals but I have never seen such a lazy, sloppy, presumptuous table such as the one presented.  With a little effort we can discern than AA1 is found on page 634.   Now I’ve just wasted a minute to scroll down to page 634 and discovered that AA1 is Aeroplane aerial application operation.  I’m not going to do one – but a neat table with a hyperlink would have taken about 30 minutes to do. (Sorry - lost the grid lines).

Quote:Unit of Competency – Proficiency checks ::  Unit code :: Schedule 6  ::  Page (s) 
Aeroplane aerial application operation     ::     AAI       ::  Appendix 4 ::  633 – 635 (inc.)

Just looking at these schedules a master index would save hours and prevent inadvertent confusion within the document suite.  An ‘Ag’ operator could discard a good portion of the ‘schedules’ and tailor make a Part 61 COM section for their particular operation.  Take time and cost a few bucks, but the overall savings would justify the expenditure and avoid ‘inadvertent breech’. 

Schedule 7: Flight review. 

Quote:For sub clause 1.1 the applicant must demonstrate her or his competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by doing the following:
You can always tell a ‘badly’ written (nod to the gods of grammar), not thought through manual when you see phases like the one above; verbose is an understatement:  “the applicant must demonstrate competency to the standard prescribed in MoS Schedule 8”.  Click; Sched 7= waste of time, wind and dollars.

Schedule 8 : Tolerances.  I have just ran out of tolerance and time – plus the coffee machine is singing it’s siren song.  

We will eventually have to summarise these ‘Schedules’ in an elegant, concise manner.  But on first meeting they have the feel and language of a project a bunch of university students trying to obtain graduation credits on a joint project would concoct.  The schedules – at that level – are not a bad effort.  The classic mistakes of ‘wannabe’ technical writers are there, as anticipated and expected.  Had this ‘Schedule’ project not then been sent to the wannabe legal eagle department and forged into ‘law’, then it would have formed the base of a post graduate project and probably earned someone a degree.  Alas, in reality, this project has been cast in stone, enacted as law and the poor aviation industry is saddled with a poorly structured, clumsy, ineffective pile of highly subjective opinion rather than a concise set of rules, made with 'ease of compliance' compliance in mind.  

I had hoped to leave schedules behind today; but there are enough loose ends to hang a regiment, enough holes big enough to drive a horse and cart through and worst of all, IMO, there are areas which not only fail to minimise risk but actually amplify that risk.  

Tempus fugit and coffee calls.

Toot toot.. Smile ...but only just.

Kharon, a quick question as I'm too lazy (and fearful of what I might find) but are the MoS (any of them) referred to in the regulations, or anywhere in the legislation? What I'm getting at is the Act authorises Regulations which in turn uses Orders etc to make the regs work. Stuff like CAAPs were advisory only so where did these MoS come from? Are they legally binding? I could venture into the legislation myself but I am not a fan of self-flagellation and I thought you would know off the top of your head.

To the esteemed Lovett.  (AP worthy and mate).

Warning: six pints of very fine ale precede this offering and one (small) glass of a very rare – exquisite rum keeps me company as I write, – but my old wooden head has activated a safety valve, the need to think, out loud one.  So: FWIW.

Those who travel – to earn a living will understand.  Strange town, foreign language, rent-a-car, crappy road map, limited time and: having arrived in the dark and needing to leave early, the drive to the airport is a strange and often wonderful experience.  Missing road signs, deceptive twists, subtle turns in the road, disorientation and traffic cops straight from Hell can and do really spoil your day.  Which is why we use a taxi service of course – or a crew bus i.e. the driver is a local and understands these things.  Part 61 is such a place, except, the crew bus is not available and we must travel, so it’s DIY, with only a mud map.  

The first question is, where are we in area 61?   We could be in anyone of a number of places.   PPL wanting to fly a Mooney when they have been exclusively flying a C182; or, a long standing Bonanza owner needing to rent a C210.  A Citation pilot asked to do a ‘quick’ job in the Chieftain.  A 604 Captain wanting to fly his friends to Louth for the St Patricks day cup in a C421.  Whatever: the tangible ‘start point’ and ‘destination’ must be clearly identified.   Each journey is different and; in area 61, legally unique.  Our map of area 61 is of poor quality but to understand the MoS map we must know and define exactly what we are and where we want to end up.

I have played with several scenario “FAQ” type scenario to explain ‘how to’ – but, as with E = mc2, the flaws inherent in the formula prevent progress beyond the barriers.  So, how to define a pathway?  Each individual case is, of itself, essentially different: and, some of the issues raised by area 61 are very valid.  

For example: a 777 Captain (full bottle) who has not operated a C310 for five years, only had a paltry 30 hours on type, has not conducted a GPS arrival using a Garmin 430 for the same time period, into a ‘tight’ bush strip, in ‘weather’ with smoke, close to last light, single pilot, without a CFIT analysis, fatigue analysis and a ‘rough’ aircraft which may; or may not, present ‘unique’ problem at just the right time.  Perhaps carnage and questions to be asked  in parliament, perhaps not.  Who would know? the gods? – perhaps, for they see the risks.

We must – seriously – re-examine the purpose of part 61.  What is it trying so desperately to achieve?  The answer is that the children who drafted it, under gods alone know what pressures failed to see the ‘variety’.  The ‘old’ CAO were drafted by those who understood the infinite variety – the modern ethos will not allow for that element; for example. 

Back in the day; I knew one Qantas 707 Skipper who could transition between a tail wheel B18, a C310 and a 707, seamlessly.  I know a 777 Check captain who could not; not on his best day ‘manhandle’ a Be 76 to anywhere near an ‘acceptable’ tolerance.

Part 61 seems to have been drafted by those who cannot, or do not understand ‘matters aeronautical’.  In the beginning YES it did.  It started it’s miserable life that way - BUT; the original concept has been so terribly disturbed and affected by so many other matters, like the need to produce something – anything – to meet a political expediency and to suit the manic, micro management demands of the previous, black letter law lunacy of ‘He who may not be named’ we have the Part 61 Frankenstein  (Cheers Creamy).  Cobbled together from old bits of tat, this and that, make do and mend.  Gods alone know what it cost.  

Well, - Sorry.   Just needed to clear the debris in my head, to think out loud and try to understand ‘why’  the industry is accepting being inflicted with and afflicted by half finished, half arsed, legally ‘binding’, micro management rules, which are – in no uncertain terms – an operational danger, legal liability and worse, of no practical value toward improved risk mitigation.  I submit, the 'new' rules promote quite the reverse in some areas. Yet they seem to manage, almost, to remove the regulator further, if that is possible, from any form of ‘responsibility’, accountability; or even taking a hand in the game of overall well being of an industry which does, one way or the other pay them to do exactly that.

Selah.. With no apologies.

Pete, short answer, we don’t really know.  There are a couple or three areas where, arguably, CASA have stretched the fabric of a law to the point of being unconstitutional; but the costs of mounting a challenge to say the Foreign AOC ‘law’ would far outweigh any benefit gained from ‘doing business’ and so the ‘law’ as CASA see and use it remains uncontested.  I forget who and when, but I believe there was a case run by Norton White which did successfully challenge a matter on constitutional grounds.  All I remember is that it was an expensive exercise.  FWIW the MoS is presented as a ‘Legislative Instrument’, grasping any more than that is way beyond our short legal reach and understanding of constitutional law.


Quote:Definition--a legislative instrument
            (1)  Subject to sections 6, 7 and 9, a legislative instrument is an instrument in writing:

                    (a)  that is of a legislative character; and

                    (b)  that is or was made in the exercise of a power delegated by the Parliament.

            (2)  Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), an instrument is taken to be of a legislative character if:

                    (a)  it determines the law or alters the content of the law, rather than applying the law in a particular case; and

                    (b)  it has the direct or indirect effect of affecting a privilege or interest, imposing an obligation, creating a right, or varying or removing an obligation or right.

            (3)  An instrument that is registered is taken, by virtue of that registration and despite anything else in this Act, to be a legislative instrument.

            (4)  If some provisions of an instrument are of a legislative character and others are of an administrative character, the instrument is taken to be a legislative instrument for the purposes of this Act.

The last MoS ramble.

Back to the grindstone, as I tried to explain in #45, part 61 is a conglomeration of theory, arbitrary judgement and what in someone’s mind, is the only way to manage ‘the subject’.  It seems to me that somewhere between a clean simple start point and the unbelievable mess remaining at the end point, the ‘philosophy’ became corrupted.  Whether this is by design, accident or malice aforethought is not within our remit for the exercise.  One thing is certain, there is a definite under lying intent to distance the authority from any or all responsibility for anything.  

If you start with a blank sheet of paper it’s probably best to define the ‘philosophy’ then outline the framework of the rule you are intending to make; then define the ‘goals’ i.e. work backwards from the end point.

For example, there are some conflicts and awkward areas existing within the ‘old’ rule set which need to be removed.  This cannot be done by ‘re-phrasing’ and using the ‘old’ as the foundation of the new.  Take CAO 40 for example it’s mess, to define with certainty how a ‘type’ rating or endorsement is to be issued is a long, complex, tedious process.  How then to eliminate this problematic area; then you must look at recent experience – on type – and decide how best to ensure that the potential for accident is reduced.  Look, you could sit all day with a team of ‘industry experts’ and hammer out the problem areas and within another day of hard work come up with a ‘cunning’ plan which would plug up the holes, but not create an expensive headache for the industry during transition. It’s not rocket science and there are some good models to use as a start point.

Part 61 is about ‘pilot licencing’ - how to obtain a licence from student through to ATPL.   Once a basic licence is held, then come the add on parts.  Aircraft, ratings, specialist roles etc.  A couple of us started with a white board and sketched out the ‘family tree’ a road map if you will, from day one when you walk into a flight school to when you qualify with whichever licence and rating it was you set out to achieve.  Then we placed the old ‘gates’ and junctions on the pathways to be followed.  When you overlay those pathways with Part 61 MoS requirements; there are dead ends, double backs and one way roads which cannot be simply worked around.  

In short, the best way forward, using part 61 is to define each element and treat it as a ‘module’.  Say an Instrument rating – you need to start in the first ‘Schedule’ and pick your way through to the final applicable schedule and ‘cherry pick’ the bits which apply.  I can tell you it’s a tedious, time consuming, confusing task.  But, with patience and persistence you can emerge at the end of the tunnel with enough data to draft a COM section, dedicated to IR.  The wheels only really come off when you operate a ‘mixed’ fleet; or you want to fly a variety of aircraft.  It’s then the realisation of huge expense and a totally buggered up system emerges.  In the old system ‘on type recent experience’ was used to mitigate risk but your IR ‘recent experience’ covered the instrument flying element.  It was a flexible, practical, if not perfect solution for risk mitigation.  Accident statistics completely support the ‘old’ system and the statistics from the US of A show that the even more ‘relaxed’ approach of the FAA has no detrimental effect.  So why Australia has taken some very expensive, convoluted measures to reinvent the wheel and come up with a square version is a mystery.  If you can make the effort, try to develop a ‘module’ from the MoS to suit your individual needs, you will be surprised, but not pleasantly.  While you are ‘at it’ look carefully to see where, when and how your personal responsibility and that of whoever ‘signs’ you out lays.  I intend to leave ‘reading and comprehending’ the MoS there for now.  The next area to tackle is the ‘practical’ competency areas which are truly dreadful.   

I do apologise for the rambling, but I believe it is essential that before you elect to qualify for anything – under part 61, you come to grips with the underlying ‘philosophy’ and aberrations within.  Just to understand the ‘language’ used is a challenge, but if we are to be stuck with it, as it stands, you need to do the homework.

MTF when I have finished with the ‘competency’ tables – if I can stop laughing long enough to draft a sensible post.  

Toot toot.

Chuckle (evil type) “K” is out on the river and left behind the following research notes.  I know he has moved deeper into the “bloody amateurish dogs breakfast” and sworn never to read ‘Schedule 2’ again, ever; but I like the following.  They are rough draft 'working' notes (and I dare not edit them) but it would be a shame to leave it parked on the PAIN computer, headed for the ‘notes’ file; so E&O accepted.  It will no doubt cost me a pint or two, but life is short.  Herewith - the part of the post that was left behind from this mornings ‘ramble’:-

Quote:It is impossible to examine the ‘practical; without touching the ‘standards’ section of the MoS, in order for us to progress beyond the theoretical to the practical, it become necessary to examine the ‘underpinning’ tenets.  So:

Vol 1 – Schedule 1 page (p) 2.

Section 8 - (a) a flight crew licence with an aircraft category rating, a flight crew rating on a licence, or an endorsement on a rating;

8 - (a) a flight crew licence with an aircraft category rating.

8.4 - For subsection 8.3, the unit coded document containing the requirements of the unit of competency is the document in Schedule 2 which has the same unit code.

Vol 2 – Schedule 2 p75.  Index:-

Section 2. Common standards. p81.

C2 p83.  C2.3 Post flight actions.  (a) shut down aircraft.  Is possibly the ‘best’ example of the lack of ‘operational’ understanding contained within this section.  Many companies have SOP and manufacturers also have some requirements.  Invariably there is a checklist of some description to complete prior to ‘shutting down’ the aircraft.  These SOP and checklist items are as important as any other essential checks.  To meet the prescribed ‘standard’ it seems one should park and shut down.  This typifies problems with ‘over prescription’ of the home made variety.  If you intend to be ‘prescriptive’ then all bases must be covered; if on the other hand you wish to satisfy the requirements of the SOP and AFM; then there is no point in ‘prescribing’ anything other than exactly that.  Post flight procedure complete as per;;;; in the next section we see a nod toward this, © as a variable.  FFS this is not ‘variable’ at the whim of some ATO or FOI it’s the bloody law.   Then I read section 4 – (a) standard operating procedures for the category, and class or type of aircraft and the operator; this is considered as ‘underpinning’ NO IT IS NOT.  It is the first and foremost measurement of a satisfactory ‘shut down and secure’ actions, a mandated process.

C3 – Blah, blah blah should be a separate stand alone item, required to be complete before going anywhere near an aircraft.  Bin.

C4 – Manage the fuel.

C4.1. Clearly not drafted by someone who has to carry a payload this is not even an acceptable prescription for a flight school exercise.  From day 1, payload will determine the uplift available; the TOW will determine the landing weight, this will affect the route chosen if an intermediate stop is required.  Then we must consider suitable and acceptable alternates, return to land in the event of, the weather for that return and the landing weight on return; VMC into IMC and departure alternates.  You cant just prescribe ‘half the job’ and call it a ‘competency’.  If one was asked to demonstrate ‘competency’ in determining a fuel plan for the proposed operation on a given day with a specifics, and could do it properly then competency could be measured; but outside of flight school, and even in training, the fuel plan ‘competencies’ prescribed do not test the ability to manage fuel, just how to comply with the ‘law’.  Valueless as presented.  Bin.

C5 – I flatly refuse to waste time on this section;  NTS 1, NTS 2 and MCO to that list.  Bollocks and waffle.  These parts have basis to cast in law under a disallowable instrument. Sure as the (rough) basis for a ground training modules, an ‘underpinning’ structure but as law – Jesus wept.  Bin, bin, bin.

NAV - (e) except for the RPL navigation endorsement and the PPL, calculate and document critical point (CP) and point of no return (PNR) locations;  Best laugh I’ve had in years.  Why not use ‘release’ points – cockpit operational control in stead.  Much more practical.  CP in a single engine is ‘moot’; PNR between two overland points is a variable depending on many factors.  Whereas operational control formulates a ‘plan’ – E.g. as it will be very close to last light at the destination, should I be delayed I will divert to XYZ at time 00:00.  Or; if the weather is not VMC at the Rodeo gap; I will divert to the destination via ABC and I will carry additional fuel to cover the possible diversion.  PNR eh? What about using radius of action modified in flight against actual conditions and considering varying the SGR – can’t do that in a lightly.  Yes; yes you ca ever climbed as high as you can into a tail wind, backed off the power and had a rails run; never dropped down as low as was safe to minimise a headwind ?  Course you have and it’s much better than launching with some mythical point in mind from which there is no return.   Yet they still wonder how come a West-wind went swimming one dark and stormy.  IMO the entire ‘navigation’ section is valuable only up to first slo navigation exercise; after that this law is useless and as a minimum standard, dangerous. Who writes this dribble?  PNR haw, haw, haw.

Schedule 2 has bored me rigid, it is fine as a flight school operations manual, it really is.  If the neophyte can attain and remember the basic standards set down it will form good habits, early in the piece on which a professional work ethos may be built; for PPL and above particularly those who operate the more sophisticated aircraft – it’s a puff piece which may convince the odd politician who cares ask to see what we spent the money on; but to fool a hard eyed professional outfit it has as much hope as a snowflake landing on the houseboat boiler.  Bin. Bin Bin.
Toot toot (always wanted to do that....... Big Grin

Oh, It’s a long way to tip this rarey.   

Cheeky old so and so; thank you Papa and yes,  pints will do nicely.  You could have tidied it up a bit, rough was right.  I was going to put up a ‘long’ post but thought I’d said as much as needed saying about the 61 MoS, or as much as was worth the candle, pen and ink.  I intend to leave it sit there, to be honest I can’t be bothered to keep ploughing through the wretched thing, if it were an animal you would, simply out of kindness, put it out of it’s misery.  

If the MoS was presented as ‘guidance’, a road map to what the authority would like to see included it would, perhaps, as a crude basic tool be acceptable. But even then, it’s a sort of sycophantic expansion of someone’s ‘philosophy’, the sort of thing you would draft when you are ‘uncertain’ but want to impress; or trying to understand a subject before teaching it.  Miles of notes and everything you can find piled in a heap, then the work starts, when you can reduce the subject to a couple of pages in note form, only then can you begin to write your ‘manual’.  But whoever wrote the MoS has not, not really come to terms with the essence of the subject, manual writing or the practical realities of life; let alone aircraft operations.  ‘We’ have just paid a small fortune to have someone write their first and probably only flight school operations manual as a university project; it needs to evaluated by the ‘professor’ and sent back for a reality check, much correction, miles of editing and at least 1000 paragraphs of refinement before being published for peer review.    

But that’s not what has occurred, has it.   It is now cast in stone; ‘law’ under the disallowable ‘instrument’ used by the late, unlamented TF to foist the crippled beast onto industry.  What a parting gift, it just about defines the utter contempt TF and his mates hold for industry.  Well, it’s a parliament job to get rid of it now, or even amend it (parliamentary approval required) – unless Skates bins it; but even then, there is still a hellish mess to clean up.  

Going to have a quick scamper around the regulations next, see if we can get a better grip on them; but with the MoS active, for every clear cut ‘rule’ there is a part of the MoS which can and will be used to make a subjective ‘opinion’ enforceable under the regulation.  

“Blunt instrument trauma for all”

Toot toot.   Tongue .


Enough 61, thank you.

Quote:“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic.”  (Lewis Carroll). 

Much like Tweedledee; I attempted to unravel the mysteries of CASR part 61 logic.  It can be done but it’s a tough row to hoe, honest, it is.  For starters there is a need to absolutely, with some legal precision, identify exactly what it is you want to achieve.  Too easy, some would say; I beg to differ.  It is a seriously time consuming, frustrating business – if you want to make certain – the cross referencing is a part of the overall problem.  The way I solved it was to cobble together a ‘mud map’ which picked out the many various 'other’ rules, sub sections and ‘clauses’ which impinge on any given task.  If you get it wrong, which is easy to do, the side bar references can place you in real jeopardy - accidental breach.  Accidental will not assist you; not if you become a hunted species.

I have, just for an example opened up the 61 PDF file, and dragged the curser down the page, and dropped it in a random spot – any part of 61 will do to try to explain what it is I am banging on about.   So, open, copy, paste, OK we have landed at 61.1165.  

Quote:Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulations 61.1170 to 61.1180, a
flight instructor is authorised:
(a) to conduct flight training for:
(i) pilot licences; and
(ii) ratings on pilot licences, other than:
(A) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; and
(B) flight examiner ratings; and
(iii) endorsements on pilot licences, other than flight
examiner endorsements; and
(b) to grant endorsements to holders of pilot licences, other than:
(i) flight examiner endorsements; and
(ii) training endorsements mentioned in Part 1 or 2 of
table 61.1235; and
(iii) endorsements for which a flight test is required; and

You will need to have every element in the prescription above open, read and referenced (then cross check against the additional references) to ensure compliance.  Even then it is difficult as there are so many if’s, and’s, buts and maybe’s associated that without at least a working knowledge of ‘how’ to properly read and understand what the various parts are saying, it is possible to be ‘in breach’.  In short; you will need to have legal advice before committing yourself to achieving any of the prescribed elements above.  Not only that, but the person you are attempting to qualify should also take legal advice, just to be sure that they are, indeed, ’legally’ qualified.  

Even then; the problem which remains is all you have to protect yourself is a ‘legal opinion’, which may be tested in court; remember, the other side will also have an opinion and they not only drafted this nightmarish maze, but enforce it.

Should you wish to relive the headache, go to the NZ CAA web site, where, very easily you will find their Part 61, a modest 79 pages in total.  To look at Oz 61.1165,  I have open on my screens, including the MoS, 26 complex, contradictory, legally challenging pages from which to extrapolate the data I need to cover the short part examined.

Life is too short.


\ Addendum: had a chat with Fearless this afternoon; we had a minor but entertaining disagreement.  In his estimation there are 200 ‘new’ criminal charges built into Part 61. I disagreed; I will, when time permits run a ‘word’ search which will include the phrase “it is an offence” and a couple of other subtle uses of language; but I reckon you could add probably another 50, maybe 60 ‘phrased’ traps which could, if the mood moved a nasty, be transmogrified into a NaFaPP play, designed to spoil your day.  

Anyway, there’s beers bet on the result – MTF – but have a look at the ‘new’ ProAviation site – it’s a winner.  Well done Stan & Paul...... Smile

GA is screwed!
From the DAS.Sounding more like a McComic Mini Me by the day.
June 2015
From the Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore

I recently released an important new policy directive about the development and application of the aviation safety regulations. While the directive reaffirms CASA’s position on the development of regulations, it takes the principles a step further by clearly setting out how they relate to the application and administration of the regulations. CASA must still apply the regulations in accordance with their intent and safety must be regarded as the most important consideration. But we must also consider all other relevant issues, including costs and administrative burden. 

This means there is the opportunity for people in the aviation community to show CASA how the right safety outcomes under the regulations can be achieved at a lower cost or administrative burden. In other words, CASA is not saying “it is our way or the highway” when it comes to the exercise of our discretionary compliance powers.

Of course, anyone who wishes to put forward an alternative approach to the application and administration of the regulations will have to be able to convincingly demonstrate they can achieve the same safety outcome intended by the regulations. The alternative approach they propose must not be inconsistent with an express regulatory requirement. They will also have to show how they will fully and effectively implement the alternative approach to compliance in a timely fashion. Alternative approaches must not require unreasonable additional oversight or administration by CASA and no other persons should be adversely or unfairly affected. The directive I issued concludes by saying: “CASA will entertain a reasonable proposal for the adoption of another approach and, in the absence of good reason not to do so, CASA will adopt such an alternative approach.”

When developing regulations the directive makes it clear CASA must address known or likely safety risks that cannot be addressed effectively by a non-regulatory means alone. Every proposed regulation must be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety, having particular regard to the safety of passengers and others who may be affected.

Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of participation in aviation or the capacity for growth. Regulations should be aligned with the standards and practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization and leading aviation countries, unless differences are necessary due to unique Australian factors and can be justified on the basis of safety. Where it is appropriate, regulations are to be drafted to specify intended safety outcomes. In developing regulations, CASA must consult appropriately with the aviation community in an open and transparent manner ensuring that all communication is clear, timely and effective. Subject to the applicable drafting requirements, CASA will strive to ensure regulations are drafted as clearly and concisely as possible within a three-tier framework.

Please read the new directive and if you have any comments send them to me.
This is the directive about the development and application of regulations.

Send your feedback to me.

Safe flying.

Mark Skidmore AM

For those with limited time and patience what Skidmore is saying is this: 'In the end it's our way or the highway. Don't like it? Stiff shit'.

It’s worse than that – much worse.  Take the time, have the patience to read what is actually being said.

These incompetent fools have completely buggered up not only 61, embarrassed themselves – internationally and have no intention of changing a sodding thing; but they have the ducking hide to challenge “real" working aviation specialists to do better.  It's a joke Joyce, not a good one, but non the less - a joke.

It’s time for Skidmore to resign.  Clearly he has absolutely NFI and has not the time, patience or humility to read, comprehend or even contemplate any of the reform ‘suggestions’ (writ by real experts) or the  “views” offered (by real experts).  Mindless, arrogant and worst of all ignorant.

Jeff Boyd, now your only hope.

Thomas old mate,
even worse than worse, if there is such a thing.
At the AOPA do, he actually stated that Europe, NZ and even the FAA were beating a path to CAsA's door to get ahold of our Part 61, so enamored were they, they couldn't wait to adopt them into their own reg's.
BWWAAHH!!HA HA! Definitely not from this planet!! Good grief he's completely been snowed by the iron ring, which suggests he 's never had a clue in the first place. Had to trust his executive experts and we all know where they are coming from.

Just when you think you’ve seen it all.

I believe we can dismiss any notion that Skidmore actually wrote this insulting, demeaning little missive.  For starters he’s not bright enough.  No, this has the touch of a malign, evil, twisted intelligence, protected and deeply embedded in the fabric of governance.   A student of past twisted tales from Sleepy Hollow can spot the well known pug marks of two predatory beasts.  There is another familiar odour permeating the mix, not quite so well known, but to the trained nose, unmistakable.

To release this condescending piece of crap the day parliament rises is a calculated ploy. 

The words are not only a calculated insult but deliberately lead the reader away from the real issue; reform: as promised by Truss, demanded by industry has had its throat cut, the body disposed of quietly.  Read it and weep.

Quote:…..Of course, anyone who wishes to put forward an alternative approach to the application and administration of the regulations will have to be able to convincingly demonstrate they can achieve the same safety outcome intended by the regulations.
The breath taking condescension, the sheer arrogance of it.  Last time I looked, it was the regulator’s job to provide this service to industry.  It is what they are paid to do, and they have precious little else to do or distract them from doing it.  These buggers have burned an incredible amount of money for over the past two a half decades, completely stuffed it and now they expect ‘industry’ to tell them how to do it and perhaps, maybe, the suggestion will be accepted.  BOLLOCKS.  

Quote:….The alternative approach they propose must not be inconsistent with an express regulatory requirement.
Here CASA implies superior knowledge – “you think this is easy do you; well try it” they challenge.  Meanwhile,  Oliver Skidmore-Twist asks for more; “I haven’t got a clue, perhaps you chaps could sort out my knitting – I seem to be in a tangle” he whines.    BOLLOCKS.  

Quote:….They will also have to show how they will fully and effectively implement the alternative approach to compliance in a timely fashion.

Unlike the CASA approach – 25 + years and counting but ‘industry’ must be able to do this a timely manner.  Not only have ‘we’ thrown a fortune at regulatory reform, but now must find the time and fix the mess – ‘in a timely manner’, while Skidmore sits on a half million salary and decides, in his own sweet time if the industry notions are acceptable.  Oh, bugger off you idiot. 

Quote:…Alternative approaches must not require unreasonable additional oversight or administration by CASA and no other persons should be adversely or unfairly affected. 

I have no idea what the writer is drinking but I want to try a pint.  The whole purpose of the CASA ethos is to be able to frame up a case which can be used administratively to achieve a specific outcome, without the inconvenience of evidence or facts proven in court.  Hypocrisy, at this level, published and polished defines CASA much more accurately than I ever could     

Quote:…The directive I issued concludes by saying: “CASA will entertain a reasonable proposal for the adoption of another approach and, in the absence of good reason not to do so, CASA will adopt such an alternative approach.”

Oh ain’t that nice, CASA condescends to entertain our ‘suggestions’.  Just they way they entertained the Pel-Air Senate inquiry ‘suggestions’ and the Forsyth ‘views’.  

You will find no hint of humility, apology or reformation in this disgraceful statement, published as a Piss-off o’gram.  A calculated insult to the Senators, the Rev Forsyth and the industry, happily signed off by an ignorant, arrogant puppet.  My Grand Mamma has more idea than this clown and better manners to boot.  

Please Minister – fire this weak kneed, drooling half wit, before we end up in a dark place from which there is no exit.   I thought I’d just about seen it all from CASA, working with PAIN for the last while has been an education, some of the events and episodes which have been clinically and dispassionately evaluated are sinister, serious and often – by legal opinion, deemed illegal.  But this missive takes the biscuit. 

Do not waste time trying to unscramble the CASA total failure in regulatory reform.  The Board and Minister need to be left in no doubt, whatsoever, of your feelings.  Demand the reforms promised and the resignation of this man who signed one of the most disgraceful, deceitful insults this industry has ever had to endure.  You, industry, have allowed CASA to get away with their antics for far too long, on too many occasions.

Stop this now, before it really is too late.

Steam to follow, lots of.

One wonders if Skidmore has not been very neatly set up?  For if he did indeed draft that shameful document, then I believe a resignation is in order. With both credibility and  confidence lost, true industry support and much needed assistance will be withdrawn.  The honourable thing would be to recant, provide explanation and seek forgiveness.  Lucky parliament is not sitting I believe a head or two would roll if they were.  Perhaps an officer; but against the published statement one must question the veracity of the gentleman qualification.

Kill 61, align with NZ – How to, 101.

Gee whiz; this Part 61 has kicked up some dust, I can’t find anyone who is ‘happy’.  It’s not too bad for the big operators, it will put their costs up a half point, maybe a full point, but the difficulties can be ironed out or exempted out of play.  For example, the requirement for an ‘instructors’ ticket for T&C operations which was and remains a bastardisation of the original intent can be gotten around.  The rest, for the big end of town, an inconvenience, but not a show stopper.  It’s only when you get to the ‘middle’ level corporate and charter where the real pain is felt; particularly when it gets to ‘prescribed’ aircraft.  But I digress.

There is even a perfectly sensible call for ‘self regulation’ out there which could help make aviation into a healthy entity again, well it's one idea,  But there is an increasingly loud call to align with the NZ regulations.  CASA have got huge amounts of money, ‘pride’ and ego invested in the current shambles; they will use every and all tactics to justify the mess and make sure it sticks.  There is even some rubbish being mentioned about “against the constitution” to align with the Kiwi rule set.  This is Bollocks.  Parts 21 -35 (FAR) ring any small bells?

The minister has two very powerful weapons at his disposal, should he choose to use them.  Part 12 A of the Act gives him the power to just tell CASA to do it; but as every fool in the market place knows, CASA will just run around the back of that and kick it to death.  So the other, brave option is bring the NZ law into law.  Walk into the house, drop it on the desk and say “I want this made law”.  Not that simple, of course, but he has viable options and can fix this.

I just wonder, if (IF) the alphabet outfits could join forces for even a little while; say under the AOPA or TAAF banner and mount a concerted effort to present Truss with a way out of this mess would be a good thing.  There is enough mental horsepower and competence out there to put together a small, easily understood solution.  It is IMO useless to persist with expectations of CASA dumping 61, with or without the ministers saying so.  Skidmore informs us that the world envies our rule 61; which gives you some idea of just how far from the terminal he is parked.

I would like to see Skidmore and 61 on the same train; to do that it seems we must convince the real powers that be that they can do something worthwhile, quickly, cheaply and easily.  Big ask, yes; but what else?  Carrying 61 and 135 will break the back of a perfectly viable industry sector. 

Toot toot.

Is Part 61 all too hard for CAsA as well? Whirlybird CMT Leader Harold Carter has pulled the pin and is headed to the Sandpit!

Fort Fumble are also offering VR's and they are cutting back the amount of CMT Leaders around the network to save money, leading up to the November restructure. Lots of Union meetings taking place. I just hope that the pot plants and worm farms are safe???

[Image: tumblr_nahwdx8HHU1tp42tfo1_1280.png]

Part61 & the fourth tier. 

Here we go again - UFB!  Dodgy

Possibly the first direct action that can be attributed to the CFI Wodger (WAP) led tiger team, has made an addition of another couple of thousand words (& 12 pages) to Part 61.. Undecided
Quote:26 November 2015

Alternative ways for pilots to meet multi-crew cooperation training requirements
An exemption has now been published which provides alternative ways for some pilots to meet the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61.

From 1 September 2015, pilots who want to conduct multi-crew operations for the first time must complete a course of training in multi-crew cooperation and have a multi-crew type rating. CASA has listened to the views of the aviation community and recognises that these requirements are not necessary for pilots who have already completed acceptable training elsewhere.

As a result, the new exemption will recognise the following as meeting the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61.
  • Completion of a European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) approved multi-crew cooperation training course.
  • An EASA multi-crew type rating.
  • Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 50 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, regular public transport operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) 82.3 or 82.5.
  • Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 100 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, charter operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under CAO 82.1 and successful completion of two operator proficiency checks which included assessment of human factors and non-technical skills.
  • Any other experience and qualifications acceptable to CASA.

Application process

Pilots who are applying for an air transport pilot licence and want to have alternative multi-crew cooperation training recognised will need to include evidence with their licence application form when they submit it to CASA. These pilots are also encouraged to provide this evidence to the flight examiner who is conducting their flight test, for verification.

Pilots who want to conduct multi-crew operations but are not applying for an air transport pilot licence flight test need to provide their evidence to their Head of Flying Operations, who must be satisfied that the pilot complies with the exemption provisions.

Providing evidence

If you are seeking recognition of an EASA approved multi-crew cooperation training course you will need to provide a copy of your course completion certificate issued by an EASA approved training provider, and a copy of the EASA approval held by the approved training provider which shows that the approval is current.

For an EASA multi-crew type rating you will need to provide a copy of your EASA flight crew licence endorsed with the multi-crew type rating, and logbook evidence showing you have exercised the privileges of the rating.

If you hold an Australian Defence Force multi-crew pilot qualification you will need to provide a certified copy of your Australian Defence Force qualification which shows you have completed an operational conversion training course for an aircraft that is required to be operated by two pilots.

For pilots operating under Civil Aviation Order 82.3 or 82.5 in multi-crew regular public transport operations, you will need to provide a copy of your flight crew licence showing your multi-crew type rating, and logbook evidence showing that you have operated an aircraft in multi-crew operations for an Australian air operator’s certificate holder who conducts regular public transport operations.

For pilots operating under Civil Aviation Order 82.1 in multi-crew charter operations, you will need to provide a copy of your flight crew licence showing your multi-crew type rating, logbook evidence showing that you have at least 100 hours experience operating a multi-crew certificated aircraft in multi-crew operations for an Australian air operator’s certificate holder who conducts charter operations, and evidence that you have successfully completed two operator proficiency checks which included the assessment of human factors and non-technical skills.

If you don’t meet the above criteria but believe you qualify for the exemption on the basis of alternative experience, you should contact CASA to discuss your individual circumstances.

View the exemption on the ComLaw website.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)