[Peetwo]

Part 61 - From the coalface

Oliver's reply a year ago to professional pilot & instructor Bob Molony:

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Bob
 
Thank you for your email dated 22 April 2015 regarding the new flight crew licensing regulations.
 
You have raised a number of important and topical issues in your email. By now, you should have received a letter from me to all active pilots on this topic. In that letter, I acknowledge that CASA has to do better in implementing new regulations and I give my personal assurance that all comments, feedback and criticism will be looked at carefully and given full consideration.
 
I would like to advise that the topics you have spoken about in your email were also raised at the Flight crew licensing implementation forum that was held in Canberra on 17 December 2014.  Action has been taken on many of the topics that were raised and further work is underway to address other concerns and problems.
 
I understand you have spoken with Roger Crosthwaite, Manager Flight Crew Licensing Standards about your email and the issues you raised. He is very prepared to continue a dialogue with you on these and other matters. Also, I understand you have provided further advice to Roger on the topic of flight reviews and proficiency checks, especially for pilots such as yourself who are faced with a significant increase in the number of checks required by the new regulations. Your input on that and other topics is welcomed.
 
CASA is open to feedback and will listen carefully to issue raised. So thank you for writing to me.
 
Safe flying
 
 
Mark Skidmore AM
 
Director Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
 
Ph: +61 (2) 6217 1001 

This was Bob's email to OST 22 April 2015:

The Director of Aviation Safety - Mark Skidmore AM

 
Cc The Hon Warren Truss MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
      Mr Jeff Boyd Deputy Chair CASA Board
 
Dear Mark,
 
Firstly, Congratulations on being selected as Director of CASA and a big well done with your positive messages as published in the last few CASA Briefing Letters.
 
In keeping with the theme of the ANZAC Centenary this is “A Letter From The Front Line of Aviation” detailing the effects of the introduction of Part 61; I will keep this short as I know you are a very busy man.
 
My background: I have been an ATO since 1991, I served twenty years in the RAAF and my fifty years of flying comes up in a few months. My day to day is Chief Pilot, GA instructing and testing, ferrying, (I have operated in 31 different countries), and mentoring new pilots, particularly in their first turbo prop or jet aircraft. My CAR 5 licence is attached; I also hold FAA and CASA PNG ATP licences.
 
As an ATO I operate on the “Front Line” of aviation, and therefore deal daily with the ramifications of the introduction of Part 61; please read this as this is what is happening out there, this is not my opinion but what I see and hear:-
 
Confusion, anger, distrust of CASA, a loss of respect for CASA, no willingness to engage with the rules and regulations. The end result is a big reduction in SAFETY, plus the attendant increase in costs. We had a system that worked well, (our safety record is a testament to that), so we spent a lot of time and money to change it to a system that has multiple problems.
 
Safety is best achieved when the regulator and the industry have respect, trust, and an open and cordial relationship, supported by logical and readable rules. All this was lost when Part 61 was imposed on the aviation industry, with CASA producing NO evidence of an identifiable safety benefit, indeed Part 61 has reduced safety and trashed CASA’s standing in aviation, both in Australia and overseas. The combination of Parts 61/141/142 has caused confusion in the training sector, with many organisations now unable to correctly map their training syllabus, and identify their responsibilities and limitations. The introduction of the 61/141/142 trifecta has imposed a workload and costs that are simply beyond the physical and financial capability of many organisations to comply with.
 
The average pilot believes they were misled in respect of the promise of a four year transition period, and “what you do today you will be able to do after the 1st September 2014”; this statement from the then Director, (see attached), was simply wrong, and many pilots have suffered a significant loss in privileges/income as a result, and for many, the costs of complying have increased enormously (another broken promise).  If you use me as an example Part 61 requires that I do five biennial flight reviews, three of them annually, and five Instrument Proficiency Checks annually, to be able to do what I used to do with one Flight Review and one Instrument Rating Renewal.  Clearly this is not affordable in both time and money, and the people I mentor, especially in jets and turbo prop aircraft will be left to fend for themselves, once again safety takes a back seat.  There are many other pilots in a similar position to mine, Part 61 will remove our collective experience and leave Australian aviation with an experience hole. Training of new pilots in the entry level turbo prop and jet sectors is now much more expensive, with many fewer pilots now able to progress into these areas. A change in the Flight Review requirements and Type classifications has caused these consequential devastating results, where no safety risk existed.
 
I could write pages of examples but that probably won’t help, the fact is that Part 61, both the manner of the introduction, and the content, has been a disaster of CASA’s making; indeed as one pilot put it to me “this was an act of corporate arrogance and ineptitude never seen in aviation before, and is the biggest threat to safety and an orderly industry that we have experienced; introducing Part 61 with all the licencing rules in one place was a sound idea, but CASA spent ten to fifteen years and  many millions of dollars, and then got it wrong. The place needs a clean out.  There was no fact based safety case presented and all this wasted time and money has managed to produce is increased costs, a reduced level of safety, and a pilot cohort who have disengaged from the regulator.
 
The audience aren’t listening anymore, and most have tuned out completely; safety has been compromised, costs have increased; and we all need to get this fixed.
 
Having highlighted the problem, it is incumbent on me to suggest a fix. Ideally a return to the status quo pre 1Sep 2014.  If that is not palatable or possible then we need an Instrument that declares there is a four year changeover period and that what rules and regulations applied before 1st September 2014 will apply to at least 31August 2018; Part 61 will run parallel with the “old rules” but will not have precedence.; the end result will have a “no detriment” guarantee. This will calm the confusion and allow an orderly transition process to be initiated. I know there may be legal obstacles to this but the safety implications must take precedence. Delay is not an option, the confusion, anger, distrust and loss of respect for CASA is increasing exponentially. The rush for dispensations, band-aid fixes and heads in the sand, needs to be stopped. Red Tape is out of control, despite the Prime Minister stating that his Government is going to remove unnecessary red tape, and costs of compliance are increasing rapidly. 
 
I am happy to talk to you and co-operate in any reasonable way to help solve the problem.  I am not a “CASA Basher” and have always prided myself on embracing change and progress, but this mess is awful, and needs fixing; please listen to this message from the outside, and not the message from those who inflicted this harmful legislation on a trusting industry.
 
Further to the above; teaching requires good communication, it is not possible for CASA to effectively communicate the rules and regulations to an audience of pilots, when the rules are written in a different language, legalese.  Any requirement to continue this practice is adversely affecting safety! By all means have a lawyer’s version, but please communicate with pilots in plain English.
 
Yours Sincerely
 
Robert (Bob) Molony
0412174562

The following is what followed in the to & fro correspondence between Bob & CASA (former exec manager Roger Crosthwaite:

Hello Roger,

 
Thank you for your phone call last week; you asked for some specifics from me so here we go. (Just some simple ones to start with.) I accept your statement that there is no intent in Part 61 to stop people doing what they were doing, but it appears that in some cases this is the unfortunate, if mis-intended, outcome.
 
1 Can I continue to do C525 and BE350 “endorsements”, now type ratings?
 
I believe I can do these ratings; I have done many of these before Part 61; both of these aircraft were in CAO 40.1.0 App 1A, Part 1 Class ratings. I was authorised to conduct the C525 and BE300 (King Air 350), endorsement prior to 1 September 2014 by virtue of being a Gr 1 Multi Engine Flight Instructor with the appropriate experience, and therefore I am still entitled to conduct the same (flight activity) post 1 September in accordance with CASR 202.263(1).
 
On a different subject;
 
(a)    I think the BE350 should be in the MEA Class as the practical differences between the BE90/200/350 are slight, indeed the differences change more with the year model and FMS fitted, than whether it is a 90, 200 or 350.
(b)    The requirement to use the BE200 sim in Melbourne for BE200 training is only appropriate if the aircraft the applicant is going to use is represented by the simulator. For aircraft fitted with sophisticated FMS/auto-pilot (ProlIne 21, Garmin 1000 etc) the simulator is a negative learning environment and causes confusion.
 
2 Having looked at my licence, do you have a work around for the multiple IPC and FR requirements; for a lot of pilots this is a huge problem which didn’t exist before Part 61. The way it reads now a lot of experience is going to be lost forever if this is not fixed, and a loss of experience eventually leads to a reduction in safety.
Rodger, I enjoyed our short discussion, but we need answers and solutions; instruments and dispensations: the training industry is really struggling with the changes, and we can’t afford to get bogged down in semantics, I know many who can’t cope with the changes and uncertainty, and have given up.
 
Regards

Bob Molony

---

 Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2015 8:02 AM
UNCLASSIFIED

Thanks Bob

I will respond to your earlier email shortly,.

Regards

Roger 

---

 Thanks Roger,

Re my email of 28th April (attached)
Can you please confirm that my interpretation re the C525 training is correct.
Cheers

 Bob Molony

---

 Sent: Monday, 4 May 2015 10:24 AM  

UNCLASSIFIED

Good morning Bob

Thanks for this email.

I did receive your email of 28 April, thanks. I’ll be putting your input into the discussion which I am looking forward to progressing.

Best regards

Roger

---

Roger, 

This is part of an email I received over the weekend.  I am sending this as it might give you a sense of the feeling out there 
“Spoke with an operator in  xxxxxx yesterday and he said that if someone would lead the charge, he would shut down his 20 aircraft and lay off all his staff if needs be to get CASA to wake up to themselves.  We can’t continue on this way.”

 Can you please confirm that you received my email dated 28tApril.

 Regards 

Bob Molony

---

 Sent: Friday, 8 May 2015 1:14 PM 

 UNCLASSIFIED

Good morning Bob 

Thanks for your email below.
I can assure you we are working through several areas to overcome problems that have arisen with respect to the implementation of the new flight crew licensing regulations.

With respect to your question below about your entitlement to conduct type rating and aircraft class rating flight training and flight tests for those ratings.

In principle, a pilot holding a current grade 1 aeroplane instructor rating with multi-engine aeroplane training approval was authorised under CAR Part 5 to conduct the training for aircraft type and class endorsements, in accordance with CAO 40.1.7.  The transition regulations authorise that pilot to continue with those privileges.
Our approach is to grant the Part 61 type rating training endorsement to instructors who provide evidence that they had conducted CAR Part 5 type specific endorsement training under CAR Part 5 prior to 1 September 2014. This avoids the complex administrative process of granting type rating training endorsements and applying limitations on those endorsements or the rating to reflect the CAR Part 5 limitation.  

 We are also concerned about the recognition of these training authorisations by foreign regulators when they are considering converting an Australian licence. It would be inappropriate in many cases for pilots to be awarded a training endorsement when they were never trained and authorised to conduct that training in the Australian system. I note this is more likely to be so in the airline environment.

 With regard to your other questions, we will respond shortly. However, your points are noted and are being considered along with other similar feedback we have received.

 Best regards
Roger

 

---

  Hello Roger, 

I have left this for a while as I know you are very busy, however I now need to progress this to conducting a C525 rating.

Do I need an exemption to sign Form 61-3CT Section 2 Person under 61.235(5), or are we following your suggestion below regarding Part 61 type training endorsement.

 Cheers

Bob Molony

---

Hello Roger,

 I have a lot of work (and income), waiting for a resolution to the below question, which is now nearly three months old.
I am a patient man, and I have a good sense of humour, BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gents, this is but one of the many many problems CASA, through Part 61, has created for the industry, it is your responsibility to fix the problems you created, in a timely manner please.
While you are fixing this can you please confirm that it is ok for me to do a flight review overseas, for someone with a CASA licence and a VH registered aircraft.

 Regards 

Bob Molony  

---

  UNCLASSIFIED

Good afternoon Bob

To conduct flight training for the grant of an aircraft type rating: 
1.  the person conducting the flight training must hold a Part 61 instructor rating and the appropriate type rating training endorsement. 


2. a person holding a conversion training approval under CAR Part 5 (CAR 5.21 approval) is taken to hold a Part 61 flight instructor rating and the type rating training endorsement specified on the CAR 5.21 approval. 

3. a person holding a CAR Part 5 grade 1 flight instructor rating is taken to hold a Part 61 instructor rating and grade 1 training endorsement. If the person also held multi-engine training approval then they would also be taken to hold the class rating training endorsement for multi-engine aeroplanes. CAO 40.1.7 extended the privileges of the rating to giving training for the grant of an aircraft endorsement if the instructor met particular requirements such as experience on type. 

4.to conduct type rating flight training under the old system,

If the pilot was conducting conversion training under the CAR 5.21 approval, then the conditions on the approval would dictate which types of aircraft he or she could train in, and any organisation limitations such as conducting the training only for pilots of a particular operator.

1. 1. If the pilot was conducting aircraft endorsement training under a flight instructor rating, then the training needed to be done under an AOC holder.
      
      
2. CASA approach has been to recognise pilots who have been conducting aircraft endorsement training prior to 1 September 2015 under one of the above authorisations and grant the pilot the type rating training endorsement.
   
3. Flight training for the grant of a type rating must be conducted under the authority of Part 141 or Part 142 – notwithstanding the provisions of the transition regulations and the two legislative instruments that authorise operators to conduct the training https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/flight-crew-licensing-legislative-instruments-0#r2
   
4. If the training is a Part 141 activity, then CASA can authorise a person to conduct the training under a regulation 141.035 approval.
   
5. If the training is a Part 142 activity, then CASA can authorise a person to conduct the training in a flight simulation training device under a regulation 142.040 approval – note this option is not available if the training is conducted in an aircraft as the operator must hold an AOC.
   
   To conduct a flight test for a type rating:
   
   The person conducting the flight test must be the holder of a flight examiner rating and the applicable type rating flight test endorsement.
   The holder of a CAR Part 5 delegation is taken to be a flight examiner and may continue conducting the flight tests authorised by their delegation. In addition, they may conduct the flight tests listed in the 61.040 approval  - https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/flight-crew-licensing-legislative-instruments-0#r2
   That instrument details which flight tests may be conducted based on the authorisations the delegate holds. 
   With respect to your case.
   I understand you satisfy the requirements for conducting the type rating flight training in aircraft.
   I am not sure whether the training you are doing is under a Part 141 or Part 142 authority (noting the options above).
   For the flight test, the requirement for the recommendation under subregulation 61.235 (4), you can complete that section and conduct the flight test – as long as you can satisfy one of the provisions in 61.235 (5), (6) or (7). 
   CASA is currently working on a proposal for the Metro, Merlin, Kingair 350/1900 to be included in the scope of Part 141 and that would enable a regulation 141.035 approval to be granted.  That work is with our Legal Services Division. 
   I trust that deals with you type rating training questions. 
   With respect to the second subject in your 28 April email:
   Including the BE350 in the multi-engine aeroplane class rating. Your advice is noted and I will make sure it is considered as part of the post implementation review.
   Using the BE200 simulator in Melbourne.  I am handing that question to the Flying Standards Branch team for them to address.  There are definite views on this about the positive and negative training aspects.
   I apologise for any gaps in advice and the time taken to fully address your questions.  Follow up questions on these topics should be directed to Flight Crew Licensing (Industry Permissions Division) for licensing and Flying Standards Branch (Operations) for matters of flight testing, approvals to conduct the training and the simulator issue.
   Best regards
   Roger 
   Roger Crosthwaite
   Manager Flight Crew Licensing Standards
   Standards Division
   CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY | www.casa.gov.au
   T 02 6217 1017   | F 02 6217 1691   | M 0400 834 774
   Safe Skies For All
   

[*]

Clear as mud??


Well okay a year on and with Oliver's Tiger Team now in the mix, any guesses to how this seemingly cordial to & fro bollocks with the regulator might have ended up??

Here is a couple of clues..

From: Bob Molony
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2016 3:58 PM
To: byron.bailey@hotmail.com
Cc: dick@dsi.com.au
Subject: Part 61 and Friday's meeting in Tamworth

 
Byron,
 
How are you, all well I hope.  I enjoy reading your thoughts in the Australian.
 
Unfortunately I will be in PNG on Friday, however I have attached some of the correspondence that I have exchanged with CASA over the past year or so, and a copy of the Regulation Impact Statement provided by CASA to the Government.
 
Dick has seen much of this before.
 
Some points from me are:
 
1 Read the Part 61 Regulation Impact Statement, in particular the last sentence of the conclusion; one can only surmise that the drafters and signatory were incompetent or dishonest – The Authority duped the Government into agreeing to the legislation.
 
2 The legislation is so poorly written that one must question the credentials of the drafters and the adverse effect of the legal input.
 
3 The introduction was so amateurish as to be laughable, indeed most in CASA were caught by surprise that it was actually released. Where was the change management team of experts??
 
4 Why was this deemed such an important project, it has cost a fortune, raped GA and reduced safety. It has also badly damaged the relationship between CASA and the industry.
 
5 The cost to the average GA organisation is in the order of $100,000; many have closed, businesses have been ruined, families torn apart through divorce and or losing their home.  Indeed Projet has forgone $200,000 of jet training business because of the laughable type rating changes.
 
6 There will be no resolution until CASA advertises all related positions and hires some decent people with broad industry experience. I believe the Director will be worn down by the System if he is not given a clean slate.
 
7 I am not a lawyer, but I believe CASA’s demonstrated incompetence would not withstand a class action from, in particular, GA operators who are all substantially out of pocket and have had their business model trashed; all this for no reason other than some in CASA had a thought bubble.
 
Keep me in the loop please.
 
Cheers

Bob Molony

[*]
MTF...P2