Part 61 Flight Crew Licensing (Prescribed Aircraft and Type Ratings) (Edition 11) Instrument 2026

The instrument relies on several distinct legal concepts that together structure how flight crew licensing works. A type rating is an endorsement on a pilot’s licence document authorising them to operate a specific aircraft type. The instrument prescribes, for multi-crew aeroplanes and helicopters (Division 2) and for single-pilot aeroplanes and helicopters (Division 3), exactly which type rating designations can be granted for each aircraft model listed in the Schedules. The same type rating may cover multiple distinct variants - models that share the same type rating designation. For example, if two aeroplane models both appear in the same Schedule 2 row and both have the same type rating in column 4, they are variants of one another. A pilot who holds that type rating for one variant may operate the other variant, but only if differences training is not required. The abbreviation “DTR” (differences training required) appears in column 3 of the tables. Where it is present for a particular type rating, a pilot must complete differences training before operating a variant different from the one they first trained on. The instrument also introduces abbreviated technical terms used possibly in aircraft model descriptions or type rating designations: AYT (auto yaw trim), CPDS (centre panel display system), CR (cruise relief co-pilot), CRFE (cruise relief flight engineer), FE (flight engineer), GVFD (global vision flight deck), PEC (propeller engine control), SP (single pilot), and TF (tactile feedback). These are defined in section 3(1) but their operative use occurs in the Schedules, which are not reproduced in the instrument text itself. The instrument also distinguishes between operations: multi-crew aircraft require more than one pilot, and single-pilot aircraft are type certificated for operation by one pilot. The schedules for multi-crew aircraft are Schedules 2 and 3; for single-pilot, Schedules 6 and 7. A separate concept in Division 4 addresses the multi-engine aeroplane class rating. A class rating is broader than a type rating and covers a category of aircraft. The instrument prescribes that a flight review performed on a type-rated multi-engine aeroplane (listed in Schedule 10) is sufficient to also satisfy the flight review requirement for the multi-engine aeroplane class rating. Division 5, by contrast, restricts class ratings further: certain specific types and models cannot be flown on a class rating alone; the pilot must have completed flight training and a flight review under CASR 61.747 in at least one model from the same row in Schedules 12, 13, or 14. The definition of “cell” in section 3(1) is critical: it means “each individual, undivided unit (regardless of its size) into which the column is subdivided”. This clarifies that a cell may span multiple rows visually in a published table, but it is still a single cell for legal purposes. A rider in section 3(2) warns that column 1 of any table contains general information only and is not intended to qualify or affect the meaning or operation of anything else.

The instrument directly affects every holder of an Australian flight crew licence who operates an aircraft type listed in any of the Schedules. This includes professional airline pilots flying multi-crew jets (such as the Airbus A330/350 series), helicopter pilots operating multi-crew helicopter models like the AW139, and general aviation pilots flying high-performance single-pilot aeroplanes such as the Cessna Citation or Pilatus PC-12. It also affects pilots who hold only a class rating rather than a type rating: the restrictions in Division 5 mean that any pilot who wants to exercise a single-engine aeroplane class rating, multi-engine aeroplane class rating, or single-engine helicopter class rating in certain specified aircraft must first undergo additional flight training and a flight review. That requirement falls particularly on flying schools, charter operators, and aerial work businesses that use aircraft like the Cessna 208 Caravan, Piper Malibu, or Robinson R44 if those are listed in the respective schedules. Training organisations must ensure their syllabuses include the differences training where DTR is marked, and that they schedule appropriate flight reviews for class rating holders. CASA is the regulator responsible for monitoring compliance, and it uses this instrument to determine whether a pilot holds the correct rating and has completed the required training before operating a given aircraft. Aircraft manufacturers and importers are indirectly affected because the inclusion (or omission) of a model from the schedules can affect the pool of qualified pilots and the cost of operations. For example, if a new variant of a common type is added without a DTR annotation, existing type-rated pilots can transition with minimal cost; if DTR is added, operators must budget for additional training. The transitional provision in section 5A affects a narrow but specific class: pilots who held the type rating “A330” or “A330(CR)” before the commencement of Edition 9 in 2023. Their licence documents are deemed to show “A330/350” after this instrument commences. That affects pilots transitioning between A330 and A350 operations, potentially reducing administrative burden for airlines that operate both. Holders who obtained the A330 rating after Edition 9 may need to check their licence document to see if it already reflects the combined designation; the transitional provision does not automatically extend to them.

The instrument imposes a duty to obtain differences training before flying a variant when the abbreviation “DTR” appears in column 3 of the relevant schedule. This duty arises under section 9(1) (multi-crew aeroplanes), section 10(1) (multi-crew helicopters), section 19(1) (single-pilot aeroplanes), and section 20(1) (single-pilot helicopters). The training must be completed (or documented) before the pilot exercises the privileges of the type rating in the variant. However, the duty does not apply if the variant is in the same cell of column 2 as the variant originally trained on , the table groups variants that are sufficiently similar. A further duty arises under Division 5: a pilot cannot exercise the privileges of a class rating in any of the types or models listed in Schedules 12, 13, or 14 unless they have completed flight training and a flight review under CASR 61.747 in at least one type or model from the same row. Section 24 applies to single-engine aeroplanes, section 25 to multi-engine aeroplanes, and section 26 to single-engine helicopters. For the King Air 200 series with autothrottle, the instrument provides an alternative compliance pathway: the pilot may meet the requirement by completing training and a flight review in a King Air 200 model without autothrottle, and then completing differences training under section 19 (which is within the single-pilot aeroplane division). This is an interesting cross-reference , section 19 deals with single-pilot aeroplane differences training, yet the class rating for multi-engine aeroplanes may be held by pilots who also hold a single-pilot type rating. The practical effect is that the differences training required is the same as if switching between single-pilot variants, but it is being used to satisfy a class rating limitation. The instrument also confers rights. A pilot has the right to hold the type rating designations set out in the tables , for example, the right to have “A330/350” endorsed on their licence if they qualify on a model listed in column 2. They have the right to treat listed models as variants of each other (sections 7, 8, 17, 18), meaning they can operate any variant without an additional type rating, subject only to the differences training duty. Pilots affected by the transitional provision have the right to rely on the automatic update of their licence document from “A330” to “A330/350” without applying to CASA. There is no right to operate a type-rated aircraft without the appropriate type rating , that is implicitly prohibited by CASR regulation 61.055 and 61.060.

The instrument itself does not prescribe penalties or create offences. It is a legislative instrument that adds detail to existing CASR provisions. Enforcement flows through the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations referenced. Operating an aircraft without the required type rating, or without having completed required differences training, would be a breach of CASR 61.055 or 61.060 (for type ratings) or CASR 61.062 (for class rating limitations). Those regulations carry their own penalty provisions, typically involving civil penalties (pecuniary) or, in serious cases, criminal offences under the Act. The instrument does not set the quantum of penalties. However, because the instrument defines which aircraft require a type rating and when differences training is mandatory, it effectively marks the boundary of lawful operation. A pilot who flies a model listed in Schedule 2 without the proper type rating is likely operating contrary to the regulations. Similarly, a pilot who flies a single-engine helicopter listed in Schedule 14 on a class rating without having completed the required flight training and flight review in that type would be in breach. Enforcement action can include suspension or cancellation of licences, infringement notices, or prosecution. The practical effect is that this instrument creates a compliance burden for pilots and operators to check the current schedules before each aircraft change. Because the schedules are not reproduced in the instrument text published here, operators must obtain the full instrument as registered on the Federal Register of Legislation to know which models are listed. An amendment to the instrument (new edition) can change the list overnight, and because the instrument commences the day after registration, there is no grace period. This creates operational risk: a pilot who acquires an aircraft on the day a new edition is registered may inadvertently discover that the aircraft now requires a type rating or DTR training, and may not be able to operate lawfully without additional training. The transitional provision in section 5A is an example of CASA solving one administrative problem (relabelling type ratings) but the general approach is periodic replacement rather than transitional, so the compliance burden reoccurs each time CASA publishes a new edition.

This instrument sits squarely within the regulatory hierarchy under the Civil Aviation Act 1988. It is made under CASR regulations 61.055, 61.060, 61.061, and 61.062. Those regulations delegate to this instrument the task of prescribing the specific aircraft models, type ratings, variants, DTR markings, and class rating limitations. If the instrument were disallowed by Parliament (it is a legislative instrument subject to disallowance), the underlying CASR provisions would still be in force, but without the prescribed detail needed to give them effect. The instrument is also linked to CASR 61.747, which sets out the flight training and flight review requirements for class ratings , Division 5 specifies which aircraft types trigger that obligation. The instrument interacts with other instruments in the Part 61 series, such as the Part 61 Flight Crew Licensing (General) Instrument, which might prescribe flight review procedures or medical standards. The table structure also interacts with aircraft type certification under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and the relevant airworthiness standards. Where an aircraft is type certificated for single-pilot operation, that is a precondition for its inclusion in Division 3. The instrument repeals the preceding Edition 10, so any transitional provisions from that earlier edition are replaced. The note in section 4 says the section heading is reserved for future use under CASR 61.050, which suggests that CASA may eventually use this instrument to prescribe multi-engine aeroplanes that can be treated as single-engine aeroplanes for class rating purposes , that would have significant training implications. The reserved sections (11, 12, 21, 22, 27) indicate that CASA may later specify type ratings for which a single flight review or instrument proficiency check satisfies the requirements for multiple type ratings. That would be a cost-saving measure for operators with a fleet of similar types. Finally, the Transitional Provision for the A330/350 references Edition 9 (2023) as the trigger point, meaning that the law effectively looks back several years to determine entitlement to the automatic conversion. That interaction between editions is important for pilots whose licences may have been issued or updated between Edition 9 and Edition 11.

Edition 11 is the most recent version, repealing Edition 10 which was assigned FRL number F2025L00087. The instrument series began with earlier editions (not detailed in the source text) and has been updated as new aircraft models enter service, as type rating designations are consolidated, and as certification requirements evolve. The only specific amendment history mentioned in the text is the transitional provision in section 5A, which was originally introduced in Edition 9 (Part 61 Flight Crew Licensing (Prescribed Aircraft and Type Ratings) (Edition 9) Instrument 2023). That provision addressed the merger of the A330 and A350 type ratings into a single designation (A330/350). Edition 9 is no longer directly in force but the transitional provision has been carried forward into Edition 11. This suggests that the amendment history includes periodic consolidation of type rating designations, and that the schedule contents change over time. The reserved sections (11, 12, 21, 22, 27) are indicated with “Note This section heading is reserved for future use” , these are not yet operative but signal that CASA intends to add substantive provisions in future editions. The reserved section 4 was present in Edition 10 (presumably) and remains reserved. The instrument was registered on an unspecified date and commences the day after registration. The repeal of Edition 10 automatically takes effect on commencement. The full amendment history from Edition 1 onwards is not available from the text provided, but practitioners should consult the Federal Register of Legislation for the full sequence. The instrument appears to be updated roughly annually (Edition 10 was 2025, Edition 11 is 2026), reflecting the pace of aircraft certification and regulatory changes. Because the instrument is replaced in toto each time, there is no roll-up of amendments , each edition is a standalone text.

The source text does not mention any litigation history. However, the nature of the instrument makes it unlikely to be directly litigated; disputes in aviation licensing typically arise under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or its successor regarding decisions to grant or refuse type ratings, or regarding findings of non-compliance. The instrument could be relevant in judicial review proceedings if CASA makes an adverse decision based on a misapplication of the schedules. For example, if a pilot disputes that a particular type rating is required for a model not listed in the schedules, the instrument would be the definitive reference. Likewise, if an operator challenges a requirement for differences training, the presence or absence of “DTR” in column 3 would be central. There is a possibility of litigation concerning the correctness of the cross-reference in section 25(2)(b) to section 19, which is in the single-pilot aeroplanes division. If that cross-reference is erroneous, it could cause confusion; a court would likely read it as a drafting defect and attempt to give it effect according to the apparent purpose, but that creates uncertainty. There is no indication that Edition 10 or earlier editions were litigated. The reserved sections are not yet operative, so they cannot be the subject of litigation until CASA activates them. The transitional provision in section 5A could potentially be challenged if a pilot who held the A330 rating after Edition 9 argued that the automatic conversion should also apply to them, but the provision explicitly limits itself to those who held it before Edition 9 commenced. That limitation is clear on the face of the text. Overall, litigation risk is low because the instrument is technical and prescriptive rather than discretionary, but any litigation would likely focus on whether a particular aircraft model falls within a given cell or schedule, or whether the DTR indicator was properly applied.

Several provisions in this instrument could trip up unwary pilots, operators, or legal practitioners. First, the warning in section 3(2) that column 1 of any table contains general information only and does not affect the legal operation of the rest of the table. That means the labels or notes in column 1 (such as aircraft manufacturer names or common names) are not operative , only columns 2, 3, and 4 matter. A pilot looking at column 1 to see if their aircraft is listed might miss that the legal list is in column 2. Second, the transitional provision in section 5A applies only to those who held the A330 or A330(CR) rating before Edition 9 commenced. If a pilot obtained that rating after Edition 9 (e.g., in 2024), the automatic conversion does not apply; they may need to apply to CASA for an updated licence document. Third, the King Air exception in section 25(2) is conditional and cross-references section 19 (single-pilot differences training) , but section 25 is about multi-engine aeroplane class ratings. If the King Air 200 series is not a single-pilot type certificated aircraft, the reference to section 19 may be wrong. A prudent operator would seek confirmation from CASA before relying on this pathway. Fourth, the reserved sections (11, 12, 21, 22, 27) are not yet in force but their headings appear as placeholders. Practitioners should not rely on them and should check each new edition to see if they have been activated. Fifth, the definition of “cell” means that a cell may cover multiple rows. If a type rating appears in a cell that spans multiple aircraft models, those models are in the same cell and do not require differences training between them (per sections 9(2), 10(2), 19(2), 20(2)). That is a benefit, but it also means that if the table groups dissimilar aircraft into one cell, the operator may mistakenly believe differences training is needed when it is not, or vice versa. Sixth, Division 4 only prescribes for the multi-engine aeroplane class rating; there is no equivalent prescription for single-engine helicopter class rating (the note says “No flight review requirements for the single-engine helicopter class rating … are currently prescribed”). That means the default CASR rule applies, which may be different. Seventh, the instrument commences the day after registration, with no grace period. An operator who operates an aircraft that is newly listed in Edition 11 and that now requires a type rating will be non-compliant from day one. Eighth, the schedules themselves are not reproduced in the legislative text provided here , they are separate and may be voluminous. It is essential to obtain the official PDF of the instrument to see the actual lists.

Compliance begins with obtaining the full instrument as registered on the Federal Register of Legislation, including all schedules. For each aircraft you operate or intend to operate, follow these steps. First, determine whether the aircraft is a multi-crew or single-pilot type, and whether it is an aeroplane or helicopter. Then locate the appropriate schedule: for multi-crew aeroplanes use Schedule 2; for multi-crew helicopters Schedule 3; for single-pilot aeroplanes Schedule 6; for single-pilot helicopters Schedule 7. If the aircraft model appears in column 2, note the type rating designation in column 4 and the presence or absence of “DTR” in column 3. If DTR is present and you will operate a variant different from the one you first trained on, you must complete differences training before exercising the privileges of the type rating in that variant. If DTR is absent, you may operate any variant listed in the same row without additional training. Ensure your licence document shows the correct type rating designation. If you are transitioning from an A330 to an A350, check whether you held the A330 rating before Edition 9 (2023). If you did, your licence document is automatically updated to “A330/350”. If not, you may need to apply for a new type rating. For class rating holders, check Schedules 12 (single-engine aeroplanes), 13 (multi-engine aeroplanes), and 14 (single-engine helicopters) to see if the aircraft you want to fly is listed. If it appears in a cell, you must have completed flight training and a flight review under CASR 61.747 in at least one aircraft model from the same cell. Keep records of that training. For the King Air 200 series with autothrottle, you may use the alternative compliance method: complete the flight training and flight review in a non-autothrottle King Air 200 model, and then complete differences training in accordance with section 19. Ensure you document the differences training. Always check whether a new edition has been registered before relying on an older edition. Because the instrument commences the day after registration, subscribe to FRL updates. Finally, note that the reserved sections are not yet in force, so there are no compliance obligations associated with them. Maintain a current version of the instrument in your operations manual or personal records. If in doubt about whether a particular model falls within a cell or whether differences training is required, seek clarification from CASA or a qualified aviation law practitioner.