The General Competency Requirement - CASR 61.385

[poteroo]

61.385 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences-general competency requirement

 

 

(1) The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence in an aircraft only if the holder is competent in operating the aircraft to the standards mentioned in the Part 61 manual of Standards for the class or type to which the aircraft belongs, including in all of the following areas:

 

(a) operating the aircrafts' navigation and operating systems;

 

(b) conducting all normal, abnormal and emergency flight procedures for the aircraft;

 

© applying operating limitations;

 

(d) weight and balance requirements;

 

(e) applying aircraft performance data, including take-off and landing performance data for the aircraft.

 

(1A) Subregulation (1B) applies if the holder of a pilot licence also holds an operational rating or endorsement

 

(1B) The holder is authorised to exercise the privileges of his or her pilot licence in an activity in an aircraft under the rating or endorsement only if the holder is competent in operating the aircraft in the activity to the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards (if any) for:

 

(a) the class or type to which the aircraft belongs; and

 

(b) the activity.

 

(2) The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence in an aircraft that has an operative airborne collision avoidance system only if the holder is competent in the use of an airborne collision avoidance system to the standards mentioned in Part 61 Manual of Standards

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There has been some discussion under the heading of 'training aircraft' in another thread on this site. I thought this whole subject of what constitutes 'competency' and how a pilot can be assured of being competent, is worth further discussion.

 

We all understand that aircraft come in all shapes and sizes, and they also end up being quite different from each other according to how they have been equipped. In other words, their flying characteristics may be different, and their avionics may be significantly different, and there may be other fittings specific to the one aircraft.

 

Now, putting aside what CASA are saying here for a few seconds, in our increasingly litigious society we must take care to satisy our obligations not to harm or injure anyone or their property. We can only achieve this by operating our equipment safely. Generally speaking, we can obtain training to assist us with this aim, but we then must take care to maintain our competency to fly the aircraft. (the 90 day rule, 61.395, partly covers this).

 

How we obtain this 'competency' appears to be worth discussion. If it is done through what the law,(including CASA), consider an acceptable source, and it is documented, then the pilot is reasonably covered. Mu understanding is that having an instructors signoff is prudent. Now, if the training is done via a flying school, then perhaps the recording of the training in their daily flying sheet, and in any flight record sheet held in the aircraft, would be enough. In my own operation, I record GA training under 61.385 in special sheets which are then filed in my records as an independent GA instructor. RAAus details are recorded on the daily flight record sheets as there is sufficient space for this.

 

Of course, an instructor needs to be humble in assessing their own competency. If you have litte or no time on the type or operation - don't do it! I've seen far too many bingles where the skygod wasn't up to the task and failed the 61.385 test themselves. (tailwheel currency is a common cause).

 

In the end, the pilot must meet the competency criteria. Your mates might be a help, but they are not going to 'signoff' on you. Usually, another skilled pilot, who might offer advice, and even fly with you (maybe not with you in LH seat tho?), won't put pen to paper either. Why would they?

 

You may only be asking about equipment in the aircraft. In which case, an instructor probably isn't necessary. But once you bring in flying competency, I think you need someone who is trained to assess that competency. It's our job.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Any training to meet the requirements of 61.385 must be delivered by the holder of an instructor rating.

 

Reference to the privileges of an instructor rating and the CASA information sheet on the General Competency Rule will support this statement.

 

I know there are plenty who will disagree with this statement. If you're prepared to take the risk and don't have an incident you'll get away with having your mate showing you how to fly a new type.

 

RAAus are exempt of Part 61, however there's an equivalent requirement in their Op's Manual.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Of course, an instructor needs to be humble in assessing their own competency. If you have litte or no time on the type or operation - don't do it! I've seen far too many bingles where the skygod wasn't up to the task and failed the 61.385 test themselves. (tailwheel currency is a common cause).

Today he really needs to be qualified as well as humble, because the benchmark out there now is Certificate IV in training. The key part of this is the requirement to not only train the person, but be able to assess how much of the training has been absorbed by the student. It would be preferable to do this by a built in module, than have to go through external C IV training.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Today he really needs to be qualified as well as humble, because the benchmark out there now is Certificate IV in training. The key part of this is the requirement to not only train the person, but be able to assess how much of the training has been absorbed by the student. It would be preferable to do this by a built in module, than have to go through external C IV training.

I'm not sure if you're saying an instructor trainee must complete a cert IV?

The reg's require either:

 

- a cert IV. OR

 

- relevant tertiary qual's OR

 

- a CASA approved PMI course

 

In any case, the trainee instructor is also required to complete a 50 question exam conducted by CASA or an approved in house exam.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

RAAus have published “RAAP 1 - 2016 Type Transition Guidance” which is available from the member portal once signed in. It gives good commonsense advise on how to prepare yourself for a new type. It is not limited to training by an instructor. The following is from the first part of the RAAP, refer to the RAAP for further guidance.

 

All responsibility for ensuring safe operation of an

 

aircraft sits squarely on the shoulders of the pilot in

 

command. By creating a conversation about aircraft

 

types and transitioning to a new aircraft type, RAAus

 

is raising awareness of the potential difficulties facing

 

pilots when flying an unfamiliar aircraft for the first

 

time.

 

RAAus data indicates lack of familiarity with an aircraft

 

is a causal factor in a significant proportion of crashes

 

and near misses. Insurance and liability issues

 

potentially exist should pilots operate an aircraft with

 

which they are unfamiliar without undertaking

 

appropriate transition training.

 

Pilots should make use of all available resources to

 

ensure they are well prepared before flying an

 

unfamiliar aircraft as pilot in command.

 

Recommended actions include:

 

• Read and understand the Pilots Operating

 

Handbook for the aircraft;

 

• Seek advice and assistance from experienced

 

instructors or other pilots experienced with the type;

 

• Ensure you understand how the aircraft differs from

 

aircraft you have flown before;

 

• Ensure you know how to use all the knobs, buttons,

 

levers, dials, etc. before take off;

 

• If necessary, have someone experienced with the

 

type fly with you before you fly the aircraft as PIC.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

• If necessary, have someone experienced with the type fly with you before you fly the aircraft as PIC.

So, if you're flying the aircraft with someone else and not PIC how do you log the flight time?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

So, if you're flying the aircraft with someone else and not PIC how do you log the flight time?

As pilot in command I would suspect. Nothing stops the pilot in command taking advice. Example, flying the same aircraft you usually fly but with an all glass cockpit for the first time. Read up on it, play with it on the ground and then go for a fly with someone who has more experience with the setup. Obviously if you normally fly a Jab and want to fly an RV you would take an instructor. You have to do what a normal person would consider reasonable.

Or you could go for a fly with an experienced pilot and observe. You can't log this yourself but it sure goes into your experience bank.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

So the RAAP says fly with an experienced pilot before you fly as PIC, if you're not flying as PIC I cannot see how you can log PIC. The only other option would be dual, you are therefore receiving instruction and the "experienced pilot" would need to be an instructor.

 

To me this RAAP creates more confusion. The rest of the aviation world defines an aircraft type as one having s type designator. eg: jabiru J160, Technam P92, whereas it seems RAAus could consider these as the same type and something like a Drifter as a different type?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

So the RAAP says fly with an experienced pilot before you fly as PIC, if you're not flying as PIC I cannot see how you can log PIC. The only other option would be dual, you are therefore receiving instruction and the "experienced pilot" would need to be an instructor. To me this RAAP creates more confusion. The rest of the aviation world defines an aircraft type as one having s type designator. eg: jabiru J160, Technam P92, whereas it seems RAAus could consider these as the same type and something like a Drifter as a different type?

I see what you mean, yes could be worded better. RAAus do not consider J160 and P92 the same type and recommend type famil training. I for one think that it is good the PIC can exercise some judgment on how much type training he or she needs. We are not totally wrapped in cotton wool yet. You can't have an instructor for every scenario. Example, flying a single seat aircraft, wanting to be the first to fly your own creation etc, you do what you can, prepare and then do it. Orville and Wilbur did!

 

 

[Roundsounds]

RAAus do not consider J160 and P92 the same type and recommend type famil training.

That depends on who you talk to! They've both got 4 stroke engines, high wing, tricycle undercarriage and similar performance. I've had some senior people tell me they are considered the same type!

 

 

[Happyflyer]

That depends on who you talk to! They've both got 4 stroke engines, high wing, tricycle undercarriage and similar performance. I've had some senior people tell me they are considered the same type!

I spoke to the ops manager about it and I assume she has the final word. That's not to say an experience pilot with many different types will need to do any more than read the poh and familiarise themselves with the layout before flying. A new pilot should definitely fly with an instructor when changing from Jab to P92 or vice versa in my opinion.

 

 

[storchy neil]

That's the bloody problem how many have read the the flight manual of the aircraft that they are learning in

 

In my opinion it should be the first lesson end of story

 

Several at narromine and temora who were learning had not read the flight manual in fact this should be made compulsory don't start me on that one

 

In fact when I had my plane on crosshire there were three copies off the flight manual for the plane one in the plane and two in the office for others to read Neil

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The POH and operating procedures are the first things I give to students / hirers

 

 

[kasper]

And what do you think happens when as an RAAus pilot you are faced with ANY 19 regn aircraft?

 

Technically they are homebuilt and each aircraft cannot be assumed to be the same as any other similar aircraft ... your dash fit-out is particular to your build and you might have put switches in different places or even built a completely modified flap tangent to have different setting to what the kit manufacturer or plane designed intended ...

 

And there is no actual POH for them as each is individual.

 

Or take a one off self design

 

How does the OPs Manager or RAAus RAAP deal with that?

 

OR If yours is the ONLY single seater of a particular type in the country how do you get familiarization? Particularly if there is NO instructor in the country with that aircraft group?

 

I'm not being flights of fancy here or playing word games for fun - I know that there is only 1 instructor (not current) who has Group C (me) and there are two pilots who fly the single seater on the RAAus Reg that is Group C ... and the Ops Manager accepted at the AGM that the Ops Manual as it is currently enacted actually fails to cover Group C at all in many areas - so technically I can comply with the CAO and fly the aircraft without being a member of RAAus or doing biennials or meeting medical standards simply because I have in the past been issued an AUF/RAAus certificate with that group on it.

 

Apart from the odd Group C issues that are the Ops Managers own making (the old ops manual covered me) there are real problems with applying the concept of type training to experimental aircraft - and with RAAus that is EVERYTHING that is registered 10- or 19-

 

Unless 'types' are design features then the whole construct of the RAAP falls apart in application to anything experimental.

 

 

[MikeBravoYanky]

And what do you think happens when as an RAAus pilot you are faced with ANY 19 regn aircraft?Technically they are homebuilt and each aircraft cannot be assumed to be the same as any other similar aircraft ... your dash fit-out is particular to your build and you might have put switches in different places or even built a completely modified flap tangent to have different setting to what the kit manufacturer or plane designed intended ...

And there is no actual POH for them as each is individual.

 

Or take a one off self design

 

How does the OPs Manager or RAAus RAAP deal with that?

 

OR If yours is the ONLY single seater of a particular type in the country how do you get familiarization? Particularly if there is NO instructor in the country with that aircraft group?

 

I'm not being flights of fancy here or playing word games for fun - I know that there is only 1 instructor (not current) who has Group C (me) and there are two pilots who fly the single seater on the RAAus Reg that is Group C ... and the Ops Manager accepted at the AGM that the Ops Manual as it is currently enacted actually fails to cover Group C at all in many areas - so technically I can comply with the CAO and fly the aircraft without being a member of RAAus or doing biennials or meeting medical standards simply because I have in the past been issued an AUF/RAAus certificate with that group on it.

 

Apart from the odd Group C issues that are the Ops Managers own making (the old ops manual covered me) there are real problems with applying the concept of type training to experimental aircraft - and with RAAus that is EVERYTHING that is registered 10- or 19-

 

Unless 'types' are design features then the whole construct of the RAAP falls apart in application to anything experimental.

I had this problem with my J2 being the only Australian Civil registered gyroplane.. Even when /after having the thing designated 'experimental'..

 

 

[poteroo]

So the RAAP says fly with an experienced pilot before you fly as PIC, if you're not flying as PIC I cannot see how you can log PIC.

You can't. That's not to prevent you from logging the flight, via an entry showing all the aircraft & flight details, including an entry in 'details' to effect ; observed operation of system x, y, z, or, observed/experienced unusual attitude recoveries. and so on. I think this would carry weight insofar as your obligations are concerned.

 

You cannot always obtain an instructor with experience on certain less built experimentals. In any case, many of them don't have fully functioning dual controls - making it impossible for legal dual instruction.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

You can't. That's not to prevent you from logging the flight, via an entry showing all the aircraft & flight details, including an entry in 'details' to effect ; observed operation of system x, y, z, or, observed/experienced unusual attitude recoveries. and so on. I think this would carry weight insofar as your obligations are concerned.You cannot always obtain an instructor with experience on certain less built experimentals. In any case, many of them don't have fully functioning dual controls - making it impossible for legal dual instruction.

So if you're not receiving dual or PIC why log the time?

 

 

[storchy neil]

I have recorded as check flight in xxxxxx for number of minutes so as I know when and where Neil

 

 

[poteroo]

So if you're not receiving dual or PIC why log the time?

So as to demonstrate that you have received 'training' sufficient to be able to then safely fly the aircraft as PIC. It won't be from an instructor, (doesn't need to be in many instances), so you record the flight details but don't log the times.

 

 

[frank marriott]

So if you're not receiving dual or PIC why log the time?

Must be some different logbooks around that I haven't seen - if it is not PIC, dual, or ICUS (no longer accepted other then multi crew training) then what is being suggested? Are people adding another column for unidentifiable flying?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

So as to demonstrate that you have received 'training' sufficient to be able to then safely fly the aircraft as PIC. It won't be from an instructor, (doesn't need to be in many instances), so you record the flight details but don't log the times.

If you receive training, by definition it needs to be from an instructor operating under an FTF. Should the person receiving the "instruction" have an accident, the subsequent investigation could prove troublesome for the faux instructor and their trainee. Worst case the faux instructor could wind up in the Coroners Court explaining how they assessed the "trainee" as being competent to conduct the flight. Trying to use bush lawyer skills and saying you were just "coaching" the trainee won't cut it.