CASA EX88/23 — Overseas Training and Assessment, and Instrument Proficiency Check, Exemption 2023

This instrument builds on a small set of interlocking concepts drawn from CASR and the Part 61 Manual of Standards (MOS). Those concepts are the legal mechanism of exemption, the use of foreign-authorised training and assessments, equivalence to Australian standards, and a hybrid verification model that combines foreign assessments with CASA’s knowledge assessment and endorsement.

Exemption as a legal mechanism. The instrument is made under regulation 11.160 of CASR (instrument preamble). It operates by exempting persons from compliance with specific CASR subregulations (for example, subregulation 61.810(3) and regulation 61.065) where the explicit conditions are satisfied (ss 4, 5). Exemption here is conditional and limited to the extent stated in the instrument.

Recognised foreign State and authorised persons. The instrument relies on the statutory definition of "recognised foreign State" and the definition of "instrument proficiency check" as given in regulation 61.010 of CASR (s 3). The foreign element must be an actor authorised by that foreign State’s national aviation authority: a training provider authorised to conduct training for the overseas rating (s 4(1)(b)(i)), an assessor authorised to conduct the assessment (s 4(1)(b)(ii)), or a person authorised to conduct an IPC (s 5(6)(a)). The instrument therefore ties recognition to that foreign State’s formal authorisations rather than to ad hoc or private assessments.

Equivalence and MOS standards. Two different standard-references operate. For pilot type rating applicants, the overseas training must "meet the standards stated in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for training for the pilot type rating" (s 4(1)(b)(iii)), and the overseas rating must be "at least equivalent to the pilot type rating" (s 4(1)(b)(iv)). For IPCs, the foreign conduct of the IPC must meet that foreign authority’s flight standards for the IPC for the relevant aeroplane or aircraft type (s 5(6)(b)), while CASA or a flight examiner separately assesses knowledge against Appendix 1 of Schedule 6 of the Part 61 MOS (s 5(6)(c)(i)). The instrument therefore uses both foreign authority standards and Australian MOS knowledge standards as dual checkpoints.

Hybrid verification model. A key concept is that foreign practice can substitute for some Australia-based practical checks, but not for CASA’s knowledge assurance and licence endorsement. For pilot type ratings, the exemption is from subregulation 61.810(3) conditional on demonstrating training and assessment by foreign-authorised actors and compliance with Part 61 MOS training standards (s 4). For IPCs, foreign conduct of an IPC is recognised only if CASA or a flight examiner assesses and is satisfied with the holder’s knowledge against Part 61 MOS Appendix 1 and endorses the licence (s 5(6)(c)). That endorsement is the legal trigger by which the holder is "taken" to have successfully completed an IPC for specified CASR purposes (s 5 Notes).

Temporal scope and limited effect. The instrument is expressly time-limited (s 2). The exemptions are also explicitly limited to "to the extent" that the holder is not authorised to exercise privileges under IFR because of failure to meet the listed CASR paragraphs (s 5(1)-(5)). The instrument therefore does not create a blanket pathway; it applies only in identified regulatory shortfall situations and only within the instrument’s life.

Evidence and demonstration. The instrument repeatedly places the onus on the applicant or holder to "demonstrate to CASA" the required facts (s 4(1)(b) opening). The IPC side requires CASA (or a flight examiner) to "assess" and be "satisfied" about knowledge standards and to "endorse" the licence (s 5(6)(c)). The instrument therefore creates mutual duties: applicants must produce evidence, and CASA must exercise judgment in accepting that evidence and endorsing licences.

Primary affected persons. The instrument identifies two principal cohorts.

• Applicants for a pilot type rating who trained overseas and who are not taken to meet the requirements for grant under regulation 61.815 or 61.820 of CASR (s 4(1)(a)). These applicants are those who, absent the instrument, would fail to satisfy a particular CASR precondition for grant but who can show they completed authorised overseas training and assessment, that the training meets Part 61 MOS standards, and that the overseas rating is at least equivalent to the Australian pilot type rating (s 4(1)(b)).

• Holders of specified licences and ratings where the holder is not authorised to exercise IFR privileges because they do not meet particular IPC- or recency-type requirements in CASR. The instrument lists four groups: multi-crew pilot licence holders (s 5(1)); air transport pilot licence holders (s 5(2)); holders of a pilot type rating (s 5(3)-(4)); and holders of an instrument rating (s 5(5)). For each group the exemption is framed "to the extent that" the holder is not authorised to exercise IFR privileges for the reason stated.

Secondary affected parties. The instrument also affects a set of organisations and decision-makers:

• CASA, which must receive and assess evidence and knowledge standards, be satisfied, and endorse licence documents where the IPC route is used (s 5(6)(c)). CASA thus takes on an explicit assessment and endorsement function in the hybrid model.

• Australian flight examiners, who may perform the CASA assessment of knowledge and endorse licences (s 5(6)(c)). The instrument allows that function to be undertaken by "CASA or a flight examiner."

• Foreign national aviation authorities and their authorised training providers or assessors. The instrument requires that training and assessments be conducted by providers and persons authorised by the foreign State’s national aviation authority (s 4(1)(b)(i)-(ii), s 5(6)(a)). These foreign authorities and their authorised agents become the source of the foreign-side inputs.

• Employers, operators and air operators’ certification holders who must verify licences and authorisations before allowing IFR privileges to be exercised. The instrument creates a specific pathway by which holders can be "taken" to have completed certain requirements for CASR purposes only after CASA’s endorsement or where the section Notes apply.

Who pays and who bears administrative burden. The instrument places the burden of demonstration on the applicant or holder. They must assemble evidence proving authorisation and equivalence, and in the IPC pathway they must submit to CASA or a flight examiner’s knowledge assessment and licence endorsement (s 4(1)(b), s 5(6)(c)). That implies applicants bear costs (training fees, assessment fees, travel costs, documentation assembly). CASA and flight examiners incur administrative and assessment time costs in providing the necessary knowledge checks and endorsements.

Decision-makers and discretion. The instrument gives CASA (or a flight examiner) the role of decision-maker in determining whether knowledge standards are met and whether the licence can be endorsed (s 5(6)(c)). For pilot type rating applicants, the applicant must "demonstrate to CASA" the required facts (s 4(1)(b)), so CASA exercises discretion in accepting the evidence that the training meets Part 61 MOS and that the overseas rating is "at least equivalent." The recognised foreign State definition is tied to CASR regulation 61.010 (s 3), so Australia’s statutory definitions determine which foreign authorities qualify.

Geographic and temporal scope. Only training and assessments connected to a "recognised foreign State" and persons authorised by that State’s national aviation authority can give rise to the exemptions (s 3, s 4(1)(b)(i)-(ii), s 5(6)(a)). The instrument operates for a fixed period, from 1 September 2023 to 31 August 2026 (s 2). After repeal the exemptions lapse unless reissued or replaced.

Duties placed on applicants and holders. The instrument imposes express duties of proof and participation on applicants and holders:

• Pilot type rating applicants must "demonstrate to CASA" four factual elements before the exemption applies: training conducted by an authorised training provider of a recognised foreign State; assessment by a person authorised by that foreign State’s national aviation authority as meeting the flight test standard for the overseas rating; that the training meets the Part 61 MOS standards for the pilot type rating; and that the overseas rating is at least equivalent to the pilot type rating (s 4(1)(b)(i)-(iv)). The phrase "demonstrates to CASA" is a procedural duty to present evidence; the instrument does not specify the form of that evidence.

• Holders seeking to rely on an IPC conducted overseas must ensure a person authorised by the foreign national aviation authority conducts the IPC and that the IPC meets that authority’s flight standards for the relevant aeroplane, aircraft or aircraft type (s 5(6)(a)-(b)). They must also submit to CASA or a flight examiner’s knowledge assessment and secure endorsement of their licence (s 5(6)(c)).

Duties placed on CASA and flight examiners. The instrument assigns active duties to CASA or to flight examiners insofar as they must:

• Assess the holder against the knowledge standards stated in Appendix 1 of Schedule 6 of the Part 61 MOS for an IPC for the relevant aeroplane, aircraft or aircraft type (s 5(6)(c)(i)); and

• Be satisfied that the holder meets those knowledge standards (s 5(6)(c)(ii)); and

• Endorse the holder’s licence document to the effect that the holder has completed an IPC for the relevant aeroplane, aircraft or aircraft type (s 5(6)(c)(iii)).

These duties are stated as preconditions to the exemption taking effect for IPC purposes.

Rights created or clarified by the instrument. The instrument creates conditional legal rights to be treated as compliant with particular CASR requirements where its conditions are met:

• Applicants who satisfy the conditions in s 4 are exempt from compliance with subregulation 61.810(3) of CASR (s 4(2)). The instrument’s Note adds a legal consequence: if the exemption applies and the applicant meets subregulation 61.810(2), the applicant is "taken to meet" the Part 61 requirements for grant of the pilot type rating for the purposes of paragraph 61.165(c) of CASR. That functions as a rights-conferring rule for certain downstream administrative effects (s 4 Note).

• For IPCs, when the conditions in s 5(6) are met the holder is exempt from regulation 61.065 "to the extent" they are not authorised to exercise IFR privileges because of specified CASR paragraphs (s 5(1)-(5)); the Notes attached to each subsection state the holder is "taken to have successfully completed an instrument proficiency check" for the relevant purposes of the cited CASR paragraph. That taken-to-have-completed status is a rights-granting effect tied to CASA’s assessment and endorsement (s 5 Notes).

Limitations and conditionality. The rights are not unconditional or automatic. The instrument requires demonstrable conformity to standards and CASA’s satisfaction. It is limited in scope by the particular CASR paragraphs referenced and by time (s 2). The instrument does not confer a general right to recognition of any foreign training; it confines recognition to training and assessments authorised by the recognised foreign State’s national aviation authority and to circumstances where MOS standards and equivalence are satisfied (s 4(1)(b), s 5(6)).

Absence of other statutory duties. The instrument does not add criminal penalties or specify broader enforcement measures; it works through exemption and administrative verification. The instrument itself does not prescribe the processes CASA must use to verify evidence beyond the elements listed; those procedural details are left to CASA’s implementation.

The instrument contains no express penalty provisions and does not set out an enforcement regime in conventional penalty terms. It operates as a conditional exemption mechanism rather than as a punitive or enforcement instrument. The legal effect of the instrument is to suspend certain CASR requirements where its conditions are met; conversely, where its conditions are not met the underlying CASR obligations remain in force and relevant enforcement provisions of CASR continue to apply,however, those CASR enforcement provisions are not set out or modified in this instrument.

Enforcement via administrative verification and endorsement. The instrument uses CASA’s administrative functions,assessment of knowledge and licence endorsement,as the operational mechanism that gives effect to the exemption for the IPC pathway (s 5(6)(c)). CASA or a flight examiner must assess Appendix 1 Schedule 6 knowledge standards and be "satisfied" the holder meets them, then endorse the licence to indicate the holder has completed an IPC for the relevant aeroplane or aircraft type (s 5(6)(c)(i)-(iii)). That endorsement is the administrative act that converts the foreign IPC plus domestic knowledge assessment into the legal status of having completed an IPC for the specific CASR purposes noted.

Burden of proof and documentary control. The instrument repeatedly places the onus on the applicant or holder to "demonstrate to CASA" the required elements for the pilot type rating exemption (s 4(1)(b)), and to provide the available evidence that the foreign IPC met the foreign authority’s flight standards for an IPC (s 5(6)(a)-(b)). Failure to provide sufficient evidence will mean the exemption does not apply; the instrument contains no intermediate penalty, but the holder or applicant remains subject to the full requirements of CASR that would otherwise bar grant or IFR exercise.

No new criminal or administrative sanctions. The instrument does not create new criminal offences, administrative sanctions, monetary penalties, or appeal pathways. It does not specify time limits for CASA to perform the assessments or for applicants to provide material. The only explicit enforcement-like mechanism in the instrument is CASA’s discretionary assessment and endorsement function in s 5(6)(c). Any enforcement action for failure to comply with CASR outside the exemption would arise under CASR itself; this instrument leaves those provisions intact by operating only as an exemption.

Record and licence control as compliance point. Because the instrument makes licence endorsement the necessary condition to be "taken" to have completed an IPC (s 5(6)(c)(iii) and s 5 Notes), licence records and endorsements act as the focal point for verifying lawful exercise of privileges. Operators, employers and inspectors will look to the licence endorsement to determine whether the holder is legally entitled to exercise IFR privileges for the aeroplane, aircraft or aircraft type in question.

Direct interaction with CASR provisions. The instrument operates only by reference to existing CASR provisions and the Part 61 Manual of Standards. It explicitly exempts persons from specific CASR regulatory requirements where specified conditions are met. The relevant interactions are:

• Reg 61.810(3): Section 4 grants an exemption from compliance with subregulation 61.810(3) for qualifying pilot type rating applicants (s 4(2)). The instrument also refers to regs 61.815 and 61.820 as the provisions under which an applicant might otherwise be taken to meet the requirements for grant (s 4(1)(a)).

• Reg 61.065: Section 5 exempts specified licence and rating holders from compliance with regulation 61.065 to the extent that lack of compliance with particular recency/IPC paragraphs (for example, 61.650(3)(d)/(e), 61.695(3)(d)/(e), 61.805(2)(e)/(f) or (3)(e)/(f), 61.880(3)(e)/(f)) prevents them being authorised to exercise IFR privileges (s 5(1)-(5)). The instrument’s notes say a holder is taken to have successfully completed an IPC for the purposes of the specified CASR paragraph where conditions are satisfied (s 5 Notes).

• Other CASR cross-references: The instrument invokes paragraph 61.165(c) in the note to s 4 (s 4 Note). It also uses the definitions and cross-references embedded in CASR, for example "instrument proficiency check" and "recognised foreign State" as defined in regulation 61.010 (s 3).

Relationship with the Part 61 Manual of Standards. The instrument conditions acceptance of foreign training or IPCs on compliance with MOS knowledge or training standards. Section 4 requires the overseas training to meet the standards stated in the Part 61 MOS for pilot type rating training (s 4(1)(b)(iii)). Section 5 requires CASA’s assessment to be against the knowledge standards in Appendix 1 of Schedule 6 of the Part 61 MOS (s 5(6)(c)(i)). Those MOS references are normative for the instrument: the MOS supplies the Australian technical benchmarks against which equivalence or knowledge is judged.

No amendment to CASR made by the instrument. The instrument does not alter CASR text. It functions as an instrumental exemption under regulation 11.160. Where the instrument applies it suspends specified compliance obligations; where it does not apply the underlying CASR obligations remain fully operative. The instrument therefore operates in a supplementary manner rather than rewriting or repealing CASR provisions.

Delegation and decision-making. The instrument authorises CASA, or a flight examiner (acting presumably under CASA’s frameworks), to assess knowledge and endorse licences (s 5(6)(c)). The instrument therefore interacts with CASA’s internal authorisation and delegation frameworks, though it does not specify those mechanics. The instrument’s reliance on CASA’s satisfaction introduces administrative law considerations (for example, discretionary satisfaction), but the instrument itself does not specify appeal rights or judicial review pathways; those are matters under the broader administrative law and CASR regimes.

International law and foreign authorities. The instrument recognises the role of foreign national aviation authorities and their authorisations as the triggering foreign-side inputs (s 4(1)(b)(i)-(ii), s 5(6)(a)). The definition of "recognised foreign State" is taken from CASR reg 61.010 (s 3). The instrument does not create direct obligations for foreign States; it recognises their authorisations for Australian administrative purposes subject to Australian MOS checks and CASA endorsement. Any bilateral agreements, mutual recognition arrangements or other international instruments referenced by CASA or the foreign authority are not included in this instrument and are not altered by it.

Temporal interaction and sunset. Because the instrument is time-limited (s 2), its interaction with CASR provisions is likewise temporary. Once the instrument is repealed at the end of 31 August 2026 the exemptions lapse and persons must comply with CASR in its unamended form unless a further instrument is made.

The instrument text supplies a concise provenance and temporal scope but records no amendments beyond its original making. The instrument is identified as CASA EX88/23 , Overseas Training and Assessment, and Instrument Proficiency Check, Exemption 2023. It is made by Philippa Jillian Spence, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, under regulation 11.160 of CASR, and signed on 29 August 2023 (preamble and signature block). The instrument commences on 1 September 2023 and is repealed at the end of 31 August 2026 (s 2). There are no subsequent amendment clauses or schedules within the instrument itself, nor is any saving or transitional provision other than the explicit duration.

Absence of prior versions or in-text amendment markers. The instrument does not record any prior versions, replacement instruments, or in-text amendments of earlier instruments. It stands on its own as issued on the date shown. The instrument does not include any provision authorising extension or earlier repeal; any change to its duration would require a further instrument.

No change to CASR text. The instrument does not purport to amend any text of CASR or of the Part 61 MOS; it operates as an exemption instrument issued under regulation 11.160. Consequently, any long-term or permanent policy change would require separate regulatory amendment processes not evidenced in this instrument.

Implication for future instruments. Because the instrument explicitly sets a finite expiry date (s 2), any continuation of the pathways it creates requires a new instrument or a statutory/regulatory amendment. The instrument itself includes no clause foreshadowing renewal, extension, or substitution. Practitioners relying on these arrangements should treat the instrument as temporary and expect the need for deliberate policy action to preserve the same effects beyond 31 August 2026.

The instrument contains no litigation history, and it cites no judicial decisions, statutory interpretations, or precedents. It is an administrative instrument made by CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety under reg 11.160 of CASR. The instrument text does not mention any court challenges, tribunal decisions, or settled cases interpreting it.

Absence of judicial interpretation. Because there are no cases cited or reported within the instrument, there is no authoritatively recorded judicial interpretation of its clauses or of the precise scope of concepts such as "at least equivalent" or the standard of CASA’s satisfaction under s 5(6)(c). Any legal disputes about the application of this instrument to specific fact patterns would therefore have to be litigated and decided under general administrative law and CASR principles; the instrument itself does not supply litigation outcomes or precedent.

No administrative appeals or dispute clauses included. The instrument does not specify internal review or appeal mechanisms for CASA decisions under it. That absence means that recourse , if contested , would be by the usual administrative and judicial review avenues available under general law, but the instrument does not record specific administrative review entitlements. Practitioners should therefore expect that any disagreement about CASA’s satisfaction, the endorsement decision, or the equivalence determination will proceed under standard regulatory review processes rather than under bespoke appeal routes created by the instrument.

1. Burden of proof sits with the applicant or holder. The instrument repeatedly uses the phrase "demonstrates to CASA" in the pilot type rating context (s 4(1)(b)) and requires evidence that the IPC "meets the authority’s flight standards" in the IPC context (s 5(6)(b)). The instrument does not specify the form, timing, or evidentiary standard for that demonstration. Practically, an applicant who lacks documentary evidence that the foreign provider or assessor was authorised by the foreign national aviation authority, or who cannot map foreign training content to the Part 61 MOS, risks CASA declining to accept the claim.

2. "At least equivalent" is an open-ended test. Section 4(1)(b)(iv) requires that the overseas rating is "at least equivalent to the pilot type rating." The instrument gives no analytical framework for equivalence determinations. That leaves CASA scope to exercise judgement about content, scope, and technical comparability. Applicants should prepare detailed crosswalks between foreign syllabus/flight test standards and the Part 61 MOS, but the instrument itself does not prescribe how equivalence is to be demonstrated.

3. Foreign IPCs are not self-executing in Australia. For the IPC pathway, the foreign-authorised person’s conduct of an IPC is necessary but not sufficient. CASA (or a flight examiner) must assess the holder against MOS Appendix 1 Schedule 6 knowledge standards, be satisfied the holder meets them, and endorse the licence (s 5(6)(c)). Until that endorsement occurs the holder will not be "taken to have successfully completed" the IPC for the CASR purposes identified (s 5 Notes). Holders who rely on foreign IPCs without obtaining CASA’s knowledge clearance and endorsement therefore risk being unauthorised to exercise IFR privileges in Australia.

4. The exemption is limited "to the extent" of the non-authorisation issue. Each exemption in s 5 is carefully drawn: it applies "to the extent that the holder is not authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence under the IFR ... because the holder does not meet the requirements stated" in the specified CASR paragraphs (s 5(1)-(5)). That language means the instrument does not create a route to alter other authorization conditions; it only addresses the precise shortfall identified. Practically, an applicant whose impediment to IFR authorisation arises from a factor other than the specific paragraphs cited will not be aided by this instrument.

5. CASA’s satisfaction is discretionary and central. The instrument’s operative hinge in s 5(6)(c)(ii) is that CASA or a flight examiner "is satisfied" the holder meets the knowledge standards. The instrument does not define the standard of satisfaction (for example, reasonable satisfaction, reasonable belief, etc.), nor does it set procedural timelines. Disputes about sufficiency of evidence or assessment scope will turn on administrative law principles and CASA’s internal processes, which the instrument does not describe.

6. Time limitation and planning risk. The instrument expires on 31 August 2026 (s 2). Training or assessment completed after that date will not attract the exemptions unless a new instrument or regulatory change follows. Employers and operators using this pathway must plan for the instrument’s sunset and for candidate training schedules accordingly.

7. Record and endorsement control as gating event. For practical authorization to exercise IFR privileges, the licence endorsement by CASA or a flight examiner is the essential gate. Without that physical endorsement the holder may not be "taken to have successfully completed" the IPC for CASR purposes, despite having an overseas IPC result. Relying on foreign documentation alone poses legal and operational risk.

8. Narrow definitions matter. The instrument references statutory definitions in reg 61.010 (s 3). The set of "recognised foreign States" is determined by CASR definitions and any lists or criteria within CASR. Not every foreign training or assessor will qualify simply because some foreign entity issued a certificate.

9. No procedural timelines or fees set in the instrument. The instrument does not create timelines for CASA decisions, nor does it address fees for assessments or endorsements. Applicants should expect operational delays and administrative costs, and should not assume rapid or low-cost processing based on the instrument text alone.

10. Interaction with other CASR requirements and Part 61 MOS may impose additional obligations. Even where an exemption applies to a specific subregulation, other CASR requirements remain in force. The instrument does not authorise non-compliance with unrelated CASR obligations that may affect authorisation to exercise privileges.

This section provides a practical, step-by-step checklist based strictly on the instrument’s conditions and wording. Compliance requires both assembling the right foreign-side documentation and submitting to CASA’s domestic knowledge assessment and licence endorsement where required.

A. Pilot type rating applicants relying on overseas training (section 4)

1. Confirm status and CASR gap: Verify that, absent this instrument, you are not taken to meet the requirements for grant of the pilot type rating under reg 61.815 or 61.820 of CASR (s 4(1)(a)). The instrument only assists applicants in that circumstance.

2. Verify the foreign training provider’s authorisation: Obtain documentary proof that the training provider was authorised by the national aviation authority of the recognised foreign State to conduct the training for the grant of the overseas rating (s 4(1)(b)(i)). The instrument requires a training provider authorised by the foreign national aviation authority.

3. Verify the assessor’s authorisation and assessment outcome: Obtain documentary proof that the applicant was assessed by a person authorised by the same national aviation authority to conduct the assessment and that the assessor determined the applicant met the flight test standard for the overseas rating (s 4(1)(b)(ii)). Retain any flight test reports and assessor certificates.

4. Map training to the Part 61 MOS: Prepare a detailed mapping showing how the overseas training met the Part 61 Manual of Standards’ training standards for the pilot type rating (s 4(1)(b)(iii)). The instrument requires that the training meet MOS standards; the instrument does not specify the format, so provide clear crosswalks, syllabi, hours, learning objectives and evidence of outcomes.

5. Demonstrate equivalence: Prepare evidence and an explanatory memorandum demonstrating that the overseas rating is at least equivalent to the Australian pilot type rating (s 4(1)(b)(iv)). Include comparative analyses of flight test standards, competencies and limits of privileges.

6. Submit to CASA: Present all documentation to CASA, using the agency’s prescribed submission channels where available, and make clear you are applying to rely on CASA EX88/23. The instrument places the onus to "demonstrate to CASA" the listed facts (s 4(1)(b)).

7. Seek confirmation and monitor for endorsement effects: If CASA accepts the demonstration and the applicant meets subregulation 61.810(2), the Note to s 4 explains the applicant is taken to meet Part 61 requirements for the grant of the pilot type rating for the purposes of paragraph 61.165(c) (s 4 Note). Confirm with CASA any licence endorsement or administrative step required to give legal effect to grant.

B. Holders relying on overseas components of an instrument proficiency check (section 5)

1. Identify the correct holder category and CASR gap: Confirm you are in one of the instrument’s listed groups (multi-crew pilot licence; air transport pilot licence; pilot type rating; instrument rating) and that you are not authorised to exercise IFR privileges because you do not meet the specific CASR subparagraph cited in the relevant subsection (s 5(1)-(5)).

2. Secure an IPC from an authorised person: Ensure the IPC is conducted by a person authorised by the national aviation authority of a recognised foreign State to conduct IPCs (s 5(6)(a)). Obtain documentary proof of the assessor’s authorisation and the IPC result.

3. Verify foreign IPC standards: Secure evidence that the IPC you underwent met that foreign authority’s flight standards for an IPC for the relevant aeroplane, aircraft or aircraft type (s 5(6)(b)). Retain the IPC report, assessor signature, and any foreign authority references.

4. Arrange CASA or flight examiner knowledge assessment: Contact CASA (or an authorised flight examiner) to arrange an assessment against the knowledge standards stated in Appendix 1 of Schedule 6 of the Part 61 MOS for the relevant IPC (s 5(6)(c)(i)). Provide the foreign IPC documentation ahead of the assessment and follow any scheduling instructions.

5. Obtain CASA/flight examiner satisfaction and licence endorsement: Complete the knowledge assessment and satisfy CASA or the flight examiner. The assessor must be "satisfied the holder meets the knowledge standards" and must endorse the holder’s licence document "to the effect that the holder has completed an instrument proficiency check" for the relevant aeroplane, aircraft or aircraft type (s 5(6)(c)(ii)-(iii)). Secure a copy of the endorsed licence.

6. Verify legal effect before exercising IFR privileges: The instrument’s Notes state that if the exemption applies the holder is taken to have successfully completed an IPC for the purposes of the cited CASR paragraph (s 5 Notes). Confirm that the endorsement is in place before exercising IFR privileges in Australia for the aeroplane, aircraft or aircraft type concerned.

C. Practical documentation and timing tips

• Keep originals and certified copies: Maintain original authorisation letters, assessor certificates, flight test reports, syllabi, and endorsements. The instrument requires demonstration; originals will facilitate CASA review.

• Provide MOS crosswalks: For both pilot type rating applicants and IPC pathways, prepare explicit mappings to the Part 61 MOS standards and Appendix 1 Schedule 6 knowledge standards. The instrument makes MOS compliance an explicit condition (s 4(1)(b)(iii), s 5(6)(c)(i)).

• Anticipate administrative time and fees: The instrument does not set processing times or fees. Plan for scheduling with CASA or a flight examiner and for any costs associated with assessments and endorsements.

• Plan for the instrument’s expiry: All actions relying on this instrument must be completed before repeal on 31 August 2026 (s 2). If training or IPCs will occur near the expiry date, seek CASA guidance and consider whether a domestic pathway is safer to guarantee continuous authorisation.

• Do not assume equivalence without CASA confirmation: The instrument makes equivalence a condition (s 4(1)(b)(iv)). Do not exercise privileges before CASA has accepted the equivalence demonstration and any required endorsements are in place.

D. Record of the legal trigger

• For pilot type ratings: The exemption creates an exemption from subregulation 61.810(3) if the applicant demonstrates the four elements in s 4(1)(b), and where the exemption applies and s 61.810(2) is met the applicant is taken to meet Part 61 requirements for the grant in relation to paragraph 61.165(c) (s 4(2) and s 4 Note). Confirm with CASA what administrative entries will be made on the licence or CASA records.

• For IPCs: The domestic knowledge assessment and licence endorsement are the legal trigger that will make the holder "taken to have successfully completed" an IPC for the CASR purposes cited (s 5(6)(c)(iii) and s 5 Notes). Ensure the endorsement is on the licence document before relying on the legal status.

Following this compliance checklist will align practice with the instrument’s explicit requirements. Where the instrument is silent on procedural steps, work with CASA to clarify documentation expectations and processing logistics.