CASA EX143/16 - Exemption — basic instrument flight training

The instrument rests on a small set of concepts and linkages to CASR 1998 and the Part 61 Manual of Standards. These are the concepts that determine eligibility, scope and the content of the permitted training.

• Exemption power and temporal scope. The Director of Aviation Safety uses the power in regulation 11.160 CASR 1998 to make an exemption instrument (preamble). The instrument itself is expressly time-limited; it commences on registration and is repealed at the end of 31 August 2018 (s 1). The exemption therefore creates a temporary regulatory carve-out rather than a permanent change to the CASR regime.

• BIF training and Part 61 MOS. BIF training is defined by reference to regulation 61.010 of CASR 1998 (s 2). The content that the training course must cover is prescribed by cross-reference to Schedule 2 of the Part 61 Manual of Standards, specifically the units IFF (Full instrument panel manoeuvres) and IFL (Limited instrument panel manoeuvres) (Schedule 1, para 5). The instrument therefore ties the permitted activity to existing competency units in the MOS.

• Eligible instructors and specified category. The instrument applies to instructors who hold a grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3 training endorsement for a specified category, but who do not hold instrument rating training endorsements or night VFR rating training endorsements, provided they complete the Schedule 1 course and are assessed as competent by an authorised grade 1 instructor (s 3(1)(a)-(d)). The term specified category is defined as the category of aircraft for which the flight instructor holds the relevant grade endorsement (s 2).

• Delegated assessment and operator authorisation. Competency assessment is performed by a flight instructor who holds a grade 1 training endorsement for the specified category and is authorised to conduct BIF training in that category (s 3(1)(d)(i)-(ii)). Schedule 1 requires that the training course be conducted by an instructor holding a grade 1 training endorsement who is authorised by the head of operations of a Part 141 or Part 142 operator able to provide PPL or CPL training (Schedule 1, paras 1, 3(a)). The instrument therefore moves the locus of training delivery and assessment into authorised operators and their internal authorisations.

• Historic qualification routes. Schedule 1 imposes three alternative qualification predicates for the instructor who delivers the course: for aeroplanes, having held a grade 3 flight instructor (aeroplane) rating immediately before 1 September 2014; for helicopters, prior authorisation under Civil Aviation Order 40.3.7 to give night or basic instrument flight training; or current holding of an instrument rating training endorsement or a night VFR rating training endorsement (Schedule 1, para 3(b)(i)-(iii)). These historic references create a limited pool of eligible instructors.

• Minimum practical content and administrative non-approval. The course must include at least two hours of flight time (Schedule 1, para 4). The instrument notes that a flight test is not required on completion and that CASA approval of the course is not required; operators may use CASA’s published course or an equivalent course prepared by the operator (Schedule 1, notes 1-2).

In sum, the instrument’s core mechanism is an operator-mediated exemption route that allows certain non-instrument-endorsed instructors, after completing a specified course and assessment, to provide BIF training for particular aircraft categories. The concept of private, operator-controlled training replacing an endorsement-based prohibition is central to the instrument.

The instrument affects three distinct groups of actors, and indirectly affects the operators that employ or authorise instructors.

• Flight instructors who conduct BIF training (primary affected group). Section 3 applies to flight instructors who, at the time of conducting training, meet several cumulative conditions: they hold a grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3 training endorsement for a specified category; they do not hold an instrument rating training endorsement or a night VFR rating training endorsement; they have successfully completed a training course that meets Schedule 1’s requirements; and they have been assessed as competent to conduct BIF training by an authorised grade 1 instructor (s 3(1)(a)-(d)). For these instructors, the instrument provides an exemption from subregulation 61.065(1) but only to the extent that that subregulation would otherwise prohibit them from conducting BIF training in the specified category (s 3(2)).

• Flight instructors who conduct the training course itself. Section 4 targets instructors who conduct a training course meeting Schedule 1. Such instructors receive an exemption from subregulation 61.065(1) but only insofar as that subregulation prohibits them from conducting the specified training course in the specified category (s 4(1)-(2)). Schedule 1 requires that the course be conducted by a holder of a grade 1 training endorsement who is authorised by the head of operations of a Part 141 or Part 142 operator and who meets the historic or current qualification predicates in Schedule 1, para 3 (Schedule 1, paras 1-3).

• Applicants for flight crew licences, ratings or endorsements who receive BIF training from an instructor covered by s 3(1). Section 5 grants these applicants an exemption from paragraph 61.195(2)(b) of CASR 1998, but only in relation to receiving BIF training (s 5(1)-(2)). The instrument therefore creates a route by which trainees can lawfully receive BIF training from instructors who lack an instrument rating training endorsement, provided the instructor and course meet the instrument’s conditions.

• Part 141 and Part 142 training operators. Schedule 1 expressly requires that the training course be conducted by an instructor for a Part 141 operator or Part 142 operator authorised to conduct training for the grant of private pilot licences or commercial pilot licences, and that the operator conduct the training as if it were Part 141 or Part 142 flight training respectively (Schedule 1, paras 1-2). Operators therefore decide whether to run such courses, authorise instructors (Schedule 1, para 3(a)), and maintain record-keeping and operational oversight that the instrument implies but does not prescribe.

• Heads of operations and authorised assessing instructors. The head of operations of a Part 141/142 operator must authorise the grade 1 instructor who conducts the course (Schedule 1, para 3(a)). Competency assessment is performed by a grade 1 instructor who is authorised to conduct BIF training in the specified category (s 3(1)(d)). These delegated decision-makers exercise the key authorisations that bring the exemption into effect for individual instructors and applicants.

Who does not gain effect: instructors who do not meet the cumulative eligibility requirements (for example, lacking the requisite endorsements or not completing Schedule 1 course) are not covered. The exemption is also time-limited; any activities after 31 August 2018 fall outside the instrument’s scope unless another instrument or amendment extends or replaces it (s 1(b)).

The instrument is an exemptions instrument; it grants limited rights to conduct certain training activities and imposes procedural duties indirectly by reference to Schedule 1 and the required authorisations.

Rights created or clarified

• Right to conduct BIF training despite lacking instrument or night VFR training endorsements. A flight instructor who meets the cumulative eligibility requirements in s 3(1) gains an exemption from subregulation 61.065(1) to the extent that that subregulation would otherwise prohibit them from conducting BIF training in the specified category. That is an operative right to perform BIF training that would otherwise be prohibited (s 3(2)).

• Right to conduct the defined training course. A flight instructor who conducts a training course meeting Schedule 1 receives a parallel exemption from subregulation 61.065(1) to the extent that that subregulation would otherwise prohibit the instructor from conducting the training course (s 4(1)-(2)).

• Right for applicants to receive BIF training from instructors covered by s 3(1). An applicant for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement who receives BIF training from a qualifying instructor is exempt from paragraph 61.195(2)(b) of CASR 1998, but only in relation to receiving BIF training (s 5(1)-(2)).

Duties and preconditions imposed by the instrument

• Completion of a Schedule 1 course. Instructors seeking the exemption must have successfully completed a training course that meets the requirements set out in Schedule 1 (s 3(1)(c)). Schedule 1 imposes specific content, formative and delivery requirements: operator type (Part 141/142 authorised for PPL/CPL), delivery as Part 141/142 training, instructor grade and authorisation, minimum flight time (2 hours), and coverage of IFF and IFL units from the Part 61 MOS Schedule 2 (Schedule 1, paras 1-5).

• Assessment of competence. The instructor must be assessed as competent to conduct BIF training by another flight instructor who holds a grade 1 training endorsement for the specified category and who is authorised to conduct BIF training in that category (s 3(1)(d)(i)-(ii)).

• Operator authorisation. The instructor who conducts the course must be authorised by the head of operations of the Part 141 or Part 142 operator (Schedule 1, para 3(a)). The operator must treat the course as Part 141 or Part 142 flight training respectively (Schedule 1, para 2).

• Historical or current instructor predicates. The instructor delivering the course must meet one of the historic or current qualification routes set out in Schedule 1, para 3(b)(i)-(iii): a grade 3 flight instructor (aeroplane) rating held immediately before 1 September 2014; authorisation under Civil Aviation Order 40.3.7 for helicopters; or possession of instrument rating training endorsement or night VFR rating training endorsement.

• Minimum practical time and syllabus coverage. The course must include at least two hours of flight time and address the elements, performance criteria and underpinning knowledge for the IFF and IFL units as set out in Schedule 2 of the Part 61 MOS (Schedule 1, paras 4-5).

Limits and boundaries

• Scope-limited exemptions. The exemptions are explicitly limited to "only to the extent that" the referenced CASR provisions prohibit the particular activity. The instrument therefore does not create broad waivers of unrelated regulatory duties; it applies only where the operative effect is to remove a specific prohibition tied to conducting BIF training or the training course (ss 3(2), 4(2), 5(2)).

• Temporal limit. The instrument is repealed at the end of 31 August 2018 (s 1(b)), so the rights cease on repeal unless extended or replaced.

• No CASA course approval required. The instrument records that CASA approval of the course is not required and that operators may use CASA’s published course or an equivalent prepared by the operator (Schedule 1, note 2). That reduces the operation-to-operation obligation to obtain CASA’s formal approval but retains the operator duty to ensure the course meets Schedule 1 content and authorisation requirements.

The instrument therefore creates a conditional right to provide and receive BIF training and places operational duties on operators and authorised instructors to ensure course content, minimum flight time and internal authorisations are satisfied.

The instrument itself is a positive exemption; it does not specify penalties or a bespoke enforcement regime within its text. It is made under regulation 11.160 of CASR 1998, and interacts with existing regulatory provisions by exempting certain persons from compliance with specified parts of CASR 1998 (preamble; ss 3(2), 4(2), 5(2)). The following enforcement-related points are drawn directly from the instrument’s structure and cross-references.

• No express penalty provisions in the instrument. CASA EX143/16 contains no separate offences, monetary penalties or enforcement regime. It functions by varying the legal obligations that would otherwise apply under particular CASR provisions for specified persons and circumstances.

• Enforcement remains a function of existing CASR regulatory architecture. Because the instrument exempts specific persons from complying with specific CASR provisions, any enforcement action for non-compliance outside the exemption’s scope would rely on the standard CASR enforcement mechanisms, not on this instrument. The instrument does not remove or alter the enforcement powers of CASA or other enforcement agencies under CASR 1998; rather, it narrows the set of obligations for particular actors while the instrument is in force.

• Limited extent of exemption matters for enforcement outcomes. The instrument repeatedly confines the exemptions to "only to the extent that" the identified CASR provisions prohibit the activity (ss 3(2), 4(2), 5(2)). That phrase sets a legal boundary: if an instructor or applicant acts outside the precise scope of the exemption, then the usual CASR obligations and any attendant enforcement consequences would apply. For example, the exemption applies only where the prohibition in subregulation 61.065(1) would otherwise stop a person conducting BIF training; the instrument does not purport to exempt the person from other legal duties or safety obligations under CASR.

• Temporal enforcement considerations. The repeal date (s 1(b)) creates an enforcement cliff: activities undertaken after 31 August 2018 would not benefit from the exemption and would be subject to the unmodified CASR provisions unless another instrument intervened. That has the operational corollary that providers and instructors must either cease relying on the exemption after repeal or secure alternative lawful authority.

• Delegation of competency assessment and internal governance. Enforcement of competency standards during the exemption period is structured through operator authorisations and assessments by grade 1 instructors (s 3(1)(d); Schedule 1, paras 1-3). CASA’s role in approving courses is explicitly not required (Schedule 1, note 2), meaning that CASA’s supervisory oversight would rely on its general regulatory powers rather than an approval process for each course.

Practitioners should therefore note that the instrument does not change CASA’s enforcement powers under CASR 1998 and that the exemptions are narrowly confined. The instrument does not articulate penalties; any enforcement action remains rooted in the underlying CASR provisions and CASA’s established regulatory toolkit.

CASA EX143/16 operates solely as an exemption instrument within the CASR regulatory framework and is tightly cross-referenced to specific CASR provisions and the Part 61 Manual of Standards. The instrument does not amend CASR 1998, nor does it purport to alter other legislative instruments beyond creating exemptions from named subprovisions. The interaction points are as follows.

• Made under reg 11.160 CASR 1998. The instrument is issued by the Director of Aviation Safety under regulation 11.160 of CASR 1998 (preamble). That identifies the statutory power relied upon to create an exemption instrument. The instrument therefore sits as an instrument made under CASR authority rather than as primary legislation.

• Exemptions from subregulation 61.065(1) of CASR 1998. Sections 3(2) and 4(2) state that certain flight instructors are exempt from compliance with subregulation 61.065(1), but only to the extent that that subregulation prohibits conducting BIF training or conducting the training course in the specified category. The instrument therefore narrows the application of subregulation 61.065(1) for defined persons. The instrument does not set out the text of subregulation 61.065(1); rather, it operates by reference to it.

• Exemption from paragraph 61.195(2)(b) of CASR 1998 for applicants. Section 5(2) exempts applicants from paragraph 61.195(2)(b) of CASR 1998, but solely in relation to receiving BIF training from an instructor who meets the conditions in s 3(1). Again, the instrument operates by reference and does not purport to alter other parts of 61.195 or related provisions.

• Cross-reference to Part 61 MOS Schedule 2. Schedule 1(5) requires the training course to address the elements, performance criteria and underpinning knowledge in Schedule 2 of the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the IFF and IFL units. The instrument therefore makes the MOS an operative part of the training content requirement. Because the MOS is an instrument associated with CASR, the instrument relies on that subordinate instrument for substantive training content.

• Interaction with Part 141 and Part 142 regulatory regimes. Schedule 1 requires that the course be conducted by an instructor for a Part 141 or Part 142 operator authorised to conduct PPL or CPL training and that the operator conduct the training as if it were Part 141 or Part 142 flight training (Schedule 1, paras 1-2). That ties the exemption to the compliance frameworks and standards applicable to Part 141/142 operators, even though the instrument does not import their entire regulatory text. It places operational responsibilities on the Part 141/142 operators to treat the course with the same internal standards as their regulated flight training.

• Civil Aviation Order reference. Schedule 1(3)(b)(ii) refers to Civil Aviation Order 40.3.7 for a historic authorisation pathway for helicopter instructors. The instrument thus relies on the existence of prior authorisations recorded in a Civil Aviation Order as one acceptable qualification for an instructor who conducts the course.

• Non-reliance on CASA course approval. Schedule 1, note 2 explicitly states that CASA approval of the course is not required. This reduces formal inter-instrument approval interactions, leaving internal operator authorisation and MOS compliance as the immediate controls.

In short, CASA EX143/16 modifies how selected provisions of CASR 1998 apply to particular persons by issuing narrow exclusions. It does this by cross-referencing and incorporating parts of the MOS and by requiring alignment with Part 141/142 operator frameworks. The instrument therefore functions within the existing CASR/MOS/Part 141/142 constellation rather than altering the wider statutory architecture.

The instrument’s text records its date of making and its temporal boundaries but does not record any amendments within the instrument itself. The concrete points in the instrument that serve as its amendment history are:

• Date of making. The instrument is signed by Mark Alan Skidmore, Director of Aviation Safety, on 16 September 2016 (preamble and signature block). That is the date of the instrument’s creation.

• Commencement and repeal. Section 1 provides that the instrument commences on the day of registration and is repealed at the end of 31 August 2018. No other commencement date or staged implementation measures are recorded.

• No recorded amendments in the instrument text. The instrument contains no later dates, saved amendments, or contravening endorsements in its text. There are no in-line amendment provisions such as "as amended by [instrument]" contained in the supplied text.

• No extension or replacement within the instrument. The instrument itself does not provide for extension beyond 31 August 2018, nor does it provide contingent sunset-review mechanisms. The instrument is therefore a fixed-term exemption as drafted.

Because the instrument is a discrete statutory instrument with an explicit expiry, any amendment history beyond the instrument would require a later instrument or legislative action. The document provided does not include any such subsequent instruments, amendments, or revocations. Therefore, within the scope of the supplied instrument, the amendment history is a single-making event on 16 September 2016 and a fixed expiry of 31 August 2018.

Practitioners using this instrument should verify whether successor instruments extended or replaced it after 31 August 2018, because the instrument itself provides no post-expiry transitional provisions or amendment record.

The text of CASA EX143/16 does not record any litigation, judicial review, or tribunal decisions. The instrument is a regulatory exemption and contains no footnotes, schedules or annexes recording disputes or legal challenges. It includes only the Director’s signature and the operative provisions described in sections 1-5 and Schedule 1.

Because there is no litigation record within the instrument, and because the instrument does not itself cite cases or legal challenges, the supplied instrument contains no litigation history to summarise. Any actual litigation or judicial decisions that relate to the operation of this instrument, the underlying CASR provisions (for example 61.065(1) or 61.195(2)(b)), or the Part 61 MOS are not included in the text provided. Users who require the existence or outcomes of any disputes or judicial reviews should consult court or tribunal databases and CASA records outside this instrument.

Within the instrument, the only procedural note relevant to compliance that might relate to dispute avoidance is that CASA approval of the course is not required and that a flight test is not required on completion of the course (Schedule 1, notes 1-2). Those notes reduce the set of formal approval and assessment steps that might otherwise be the subject of legal contention, but the instrument itself does not record any cases or disputes.

The instrument’s brevity and its cross-references create specific operational pitfalls and boundary issues that users should attend to. Each "gotcha" below is tied to a textual provision in the instrument.

• Time-limited nature. The instrument is repealed at the end of 31 August 2018 (s 1(b)). Any reliance on the exemptions must be time-bound. Training conducted outside the instrument’s life is not covered. The instrument contains no transitional clause; after repeal the underlying prohibitions in CASR 1998 will again apply unless replaced by a subsequent instrument.

• Narrow scope of the exemption. The exemptions are repeatedly qualified by the phrase "but only to the extent that" the relevant CASR subregulation prohibits the activity (ss 3(2), 4(2), 5(2)). That means the exemption does not create a general waiver of CASR obligations; it applies only where the legal barrier is the particular subregulation named. Practically, instructors and operators must establish that the activity they propose to carry out is exactly the activity to which the exemption applies.

• Cumulative eligibility requirements. Section 3(1) sets four cumulative conditions for the instructor exemption: holding a grade 1/2/3 training endorsement, not holding an instrument rating training or night VFR rating training endorsement, having completed a Schedule 1 course, and being assessed as competent by an authorised grade 1 instructor (s 3(1)(a)-(d)). All elements must be met. Missing any one element removes the exemption.

• Operator and head of operations authorisation required. Schedule 1 requires that the course be conducted by an instructor for a Part 141 or Part 142 operator authorised to provide PPL or CPL training and that the course instructor be authorised by the operator’s head of operations (Schedule 1, paras 1-3). Solo or ad hoc instructors operating outside Part 141/142 structures cannot rely on the instrument.

• Historic qualification predicates limit supply. The instructor who conducts the course must, in addition to being a grade 1 training endorsement holder, meet one of the historic or current qualification routes set out in Schedule 1, para 3(b)(i)-(iii). For aeroplanes, that includes having held a grade 3 flight instructor (aeroplane) rating immediately before 1 September 2014. Those time-specific predicates can limit the pool of eligible instructors.

• Mandatory practical minimum and syllabus alignment. Schedule 1 requires at least two hours of flight time and coverage of IFF and IFL units as per Schedule 2 of the Part 61 MOS (Schedule 1, paras 4-5). Operators must ensure that their course meets those content and minimum flight time conditions.

• Delegated assessment rather than CASA flight test. The instrument explicitly notes that a flight test is not required on completion of the training (Schedule 1, note 1). Competence is assessed by an authorised grade 1 instructor (s 3(1)(d)). That shifts the assessment function from an external CASA flight test to internal operator/appraiser-based assessment. Operators must therefore ensure robust records and governance for those assessments to demonstrate that the Schedule 1 course and assessment were carried out.

• No CASA course approval requirement. Schedule 1, note 2 records that CASA approval of the course is not required and operators may use CASA’s published course or an equivalent prepared by the operator. Operators should document course equivalence and content mapping to Schedule 2 of the Part 61 MOS because CASA approval is not a procedural gatekeeper; the instrument makes the operator responsible for ensuring compliance with Schedule 1 content.

• Limited exemption for applicants. Section 5 exempts applicants from paragraph 61.195(2)(b) but only in relation to receiving BIF training from an instructor covered by s 3(1). The exemption does not otherwise alter the application or testing regimes for licences, ratings or endorsements on broader grounds.

• Interaction with other, non-referenced CASR obligations. The instrument only exempts from the specific referenced subregulations. It does not exempt instructors or operators from other CASR obligations, safety duties or civil liability regimes. Operating under the instrument therefore requires attention to what remains in force beyond the narrow exemption.

Each of the above is grounded in the instrument’s language and should guide practical decision-making about whether and how to rely on the exemption while it is in force.

Compliance with CASA EX143/16 requires meeting the instrument’s procedural and substantive conditions and documenting each step. Below is a stepwise compliance checklist linked to the instrument’s provisions.

1. Confirm temporal applicability. Ensure the training dates fall within the instrument’s operation. The instrument commences on the day of registration and is repealed at the end of 31 August 2018 (s 1). Training outside that window is not covered.

2. Verify instructor baseline endorsements. For an instructor to be eligible under s 3(1), confirm they hold a grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3 training endorsement for the specified category (s 3(1)(a)). The "specified category" is the category of aircraft for which the flight instructor holds the grade endorsement (s 2). Ensure the instructor does not hold an instrument rating training endorsement or a night VFR rating training endorsement (s 3(1)(b)).

3. Design and deliver a Schedule 1-compliant course. The training course must meet the requirements in Schedule 1. That entails:

   • Conducting the course through a Part 141 or Part 142 operator authorised to provide PPL or CPL training (Schedule 1, para 1).
   • Conducting the training as if it were Part 141 flight training (for Part 141 operators) or Part 142 flight training (for Part 142 operators) (Schedule 1, para 2).
   • Ensuring the instructor delivering the course holds a grade 1 training endorsement for the specified category and is authorised by the head of operations (Schedule 1, para 3(a)).
   • Verifying the course-delivering instructor meets one of the qualification pathways in Schedule 1, para 3(b)(i)-(iii).
   • Including at least two hours of flight time in the course (Schedule 1, para 4).
   • Ensuring the course addresses the elements, performance criteria and underpinning knowledge in Schedule 2 of the Part 61 MOS for the IFF and IFL units (Schedule 1, para 5).

4. Document course content and equivalence. While CASA approval of the course is not required (Schedule 1, note 2), operators that use an equivalent course prepared internally must document how the course maps to the Part 61 MOS Schedule 2 IFF and IFL units, and retain records of course syllabi, lesson plans and learning materials.

5. Authorise the course instructor. The head of operations must provide written authorisation for the grade 1 instructor to conduct the course under Schedule 1, para 3(a). Maintain a formal authorisation record including dates, scope and aircraft category.

6. Conduct and record practical flight hours. Ensure the two hours of flight time requirement is met and that flight records indicate which candidates completed the flights, flight times, aircraft used and instructor oversight. These records support the assertion that Schedule 1, para 4 has been satisfied.

7. Competency assessment by an authorised grade 1 instructor. For instructors seeking to rely on s 3(2) to conduct BIF training, arrange for an assessment of competence by a flight instructor who holds a grade 1 training endorsement for the specified category and is authorised to conduct BIF training in that category (s 3(1)(d)). Document the assessment outcomes, criteria used and the identity of the assessor.

8. Retain training and assessment records. Maintain documentation of course delivery, attendance, flight time logs, assessment outcomes and authorisations. Because no CASA approval is required and no flight test is mandated on completion (Schedule 1, notes 1-2), internal records are the primary evidence that the Schedule 1 conditions were satisfied.

9. Apply the exemptions only to the permitted scope. Ensure that any use of the exemptions is tightly focused on conducting BIF training (for instructors covered by s 3(1)) or conducting the Schedule 1 course (for instructors covered by s 4(1)). The instrument repeatedly limits the exemptions "only to the extent" the referenced CASR provisions would otherwise prohibit the activity (ss 3(2), 4(2), 5(2)). Do not extend reliance to other activities or categories beyond the specified category.

10. For applicants receiving training, document the instructor’s eligibility. If an applicant claims exemption from paragraph 61.195(2)(b) by receiving BIF training, ensure the applicant’s training records indicate the instructor met s 3(1) at the time of training and retain the relevant course and assessment records (s 5(1)-(2)).

11. Revisit compliance after repeal. Because the instrument is time-limited (s 1(b)), operators, instructors and applicants should prepare for the point at which the exemption ceases to operate. That may mean planning for instructor endorsement upgrades, planning alternative training pathways, or discontinuing BIF training via this exemption.

12. Confirm cross-reference requirements. Ensure course materials and assessments address the Part 61 MOS Schedule 2 IFF and IFL units as in force from time to time (Schedule 1, para 5). Track any subsequent changes to those MOS provisions that might occur during the instrument’s operative period so that course content remains current.

Following these steps and keeping robust records of authorisations, course content, flight time and assessments aligns practical operations with the instrument’s textual requirements and evidences compliance in case of regulatory inquiry.