Australia’s aviation training landscape is marked by its intricacies and layered regulations. One of the common misconceptions in this arena relates to Part 141 and Part 142 operators (flying schools) and their role in delivering VET qualifications connected to Part 61 Flight crew licensing.

Let’s dive into these complexities and debunk some myths…

RTOs and VET Qualifications: The Real Deal

Contrary to popular belief, not every RTO offering VET qualifications related to Part 61 Flight crew licensing needs to be approved as a Part 142 flying school by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

In fact, any organisation registered by ASQA as an RTO can provide training and confer qualifications, as long as the:

• training aligns with VET regulations
• qualification is within the RTO’s registration scope
• course is consistent with the training package
• training adheres to Commonwealth, State, and Territory legislative and regulatory mandates.

Understanding Part 141 & Part 142 Flying Schools

It’s vital to understand that Part 141 and Part 142 flying schools operate under Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and fall outside the direct purview of Vocational Education and Training. Unless they double up as an RTO, these schools can’t deliver VET training or issue a VET qualification. The only exception is when they act as a third party to provide training services for an RTO.

For aviation-focused VET qualifications, an organisation could be one of two entities:

• a Part 141 or Part 142 flying school registered by ASQA.
• an ASQA-registered organisation using a third-party Part 141 or Part 142 flying school for “in-aircraft” training.

Many believe that VET training is primarily aligned with Part 142 flying training schools. Yet, when examining Part 61 Flight crew licensing training through the VET lens, it becomes evident that Part 141 flying schools hold the upper hand.

The Part 142 Puzzle: Unravelling the Intricacies

On the surface, Australian flying school regulations might seem straightforward. But delve a bit deeper, and you’re introduced to the intricacies of the Part 142 conundrum, especially concerning Vocational Education and Training (VET).

The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) dictates the rules under which flying schools operate. Within these regulations, Part 141 and Part 142 lays out the specifics for flying training organisations. It provides the guidelines for comprehensive training organisations that have robust structures and training methodologies, ensuring the safety and competence of future aviators.

Yet, there’s an aspect of Part 142 that often gets overshadowed when training moves to the VET sector. Flying schools operating under Part 142 might find themselves in a regulatory quandary when attempting to offer VET training. While VET qualifications are nationally recognised and provide an essential framework for training across a myriad of sectors, integrating them into the aviation framework is where the challenge arises.

142.015 Definitions of Part 142 activity, Part 142 flight training, Part 142 authorisation, Part 142 operator and authorised Part 142 activity for Part 142 states that Part 142 flight training is any of the following:

• an integrated training course for the grant under Part 61 of a private pilot licence or commercial pilot licence;
• training for the grant under Part 61 of a multi‑crew pilot licence, air transport pilot licence or flight engineer licence;
• multi‑crew cooperation training;
• training for the grant under Part 61 of a type rating other than a type rating mentioned in an instrument under regulation 142.045;
• training, conducted as a multi‑crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew rating other than a type rating;
• training, conducted as a multi‑crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew endorsement other than:
• a design feature endorsement; or
• a flight activity endorsement;
  • training that is given as part of a flight review that is conducted as a multi‑crew operation;
  • differences training:
• that is required as mentioned in regulation 61.780, 61.835 or 61.1370 for a variant covered by a type rating that is not a type rating mentioned in a legislative instrument under regulation 142.045; and
• that is not conducted by an operator that has a training and checking system that is in accordance with the requirements of Part 119 or 138.

There are two problems that present here:

• integrated training as defined in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 is designed to be completed within a condensed period of time. This is inconsistent with VET training, which is designed to:
• meet the training needs of specific industries or sectors
• provide students with the knowledge and skills required by individuals to perform effectively in the workplace
• there are very few VET qualifications that are for designed training for the grant under Part 61 of a multi‑crew pilot licence, air transport pilot licence or flight engineer licence.

While both CASR Part 142 and VET aim to ensure quality training and safety, their criteria does not always align perfectly. This misalignment necessitates flying schools to tread cautiously, ensuring they adhere to both sets of requirements without compromise.

In contrast, Part 141 flight training includes, but is not limited to, provision to train for the following purposes:

• training for the grant under Part 61 of a private pilot licence or commercial pilot licence that is not an integrated training course
• training, other than training conducted as a multi‑crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew rating other than a type rating

When juxtaposed with Part 141 flying schools, Part 142 institutions encounter specific challenges. Chief among these is the divergent interpretation of integrated training: while the VET system has its distinct perspective, CASA’s viewpoint can differ markedly, leading to potential regulatory complexities for Part 142 schools that are also RTOs.

Integrated vs. Non-integrated Training

The term “integrated training” pertains to intensive courses which blend ground theory with practical flight training, typically completed within a concise timeframe. On the other hand, “non-integrated” training, as indicated by CASA, refers to any training that doesn’t fulfil integrated training criteria.

The dictionary in Volume 5 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 states that integrated training means “an intensive course of training:

1. that is designed to ensure that a course participant receives ground theory training integrated with practical flight training; and
2. for which:
3. the ground theory training and practical flight training are conducted by the same operator; or
4. the operator that conducts the practical flight training engages another person or organisation to conduct the ground theory training on behalf of the operator; and
5. that is conducted according to a syllabus that satisfies the knowledge and flight standards specified in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the grant of a private or commercial pilot licence;
6. that is designed to be completed within a condensed period of time.”

According to CASA, anything else is “non-integrated and falls within the realm of Part 141.

Understanding RTOs

Registered Training Organisations, commonly abbreviated as RTOs, form the backbone of Australia’s vocational education and training (VET) sector. They play a pivotal role in ensuring that the workforce remains skilled and competent, catering to both the contemporary and evolving needs of industries across the country.

RTOs are recognised as providers of quality training and qualifications within the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). They are formally approved to equip students with both the theoretical knowledge and practical skills required for a vast array of professions and trades.

The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) oversees and regulates RTOs and navigating the regulatory landscape set forth by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) can be both comprehensive and exacting. ASQA’s approach is underpinned by a commitment to ensuring that RTOs uphold the highest standards of quality in vocational education and training (VET).

One of the standout features of RTOs is their alignment with industry demands. They liaise closely with various industries to ensure that their curricula remain relevant, incorporating the latest trends, technologies, and best practices.

A significant benefit of studying with an RTO is the assurance that your qualification is recognised across Australia. This national recognition boosts employability and facilitates easier transitions between states for job seekers.

RTOs are more than just educational institutions; they are pivotal entities ensuring that Australia’s workforce remains competent, agile, and prepared for the challenges of the modern world. Whether you’re a student seeking to upskill, an employer aiming to elevate your team’s expertise, or simply a lifelong learner, RTOs offer pathways to success.

Clash of Norms: CASA vs. RTOs

In the VET sector, the world is completely different, and at times in conflict with, the world of general aviation training.

Unlike Part 141 and Part 142 flying schools where training practices are in accordance with a syllabus that has been set by the aviation regulator, an RTO’s training and assessment practices, including the amount of training they provide, must be consistent with the requirements of training packages and enable each learner to meet the requirements for each unit of competency or module in which they are enrolled.

Jobs and Skills Councils (JSCs) design training packages to address industry-specific training needs. However, they are not tailored to be completed within a shortened period. Because of this, they will likely conflict with CASA’s requirements for integrated training.

For instance, the AVI50222 Diploma of Aviation (Commercial Pilot Licence – Aeroplane) is often offered by RTOs training students for a Commercial Pilots Licence (CPL). However, this training package merely represents a part of the requirements for CASA certification, not guaranteeing a licensing outcome.

It is also a diploma level qualification that, according to ASQA, takes 1200 to 2400 hours (1-2 years) for a student to develop all the required skills and knowledge if they do not already hold any of the competencies identified in the relevant units of competency within the training package. This is a far cry from, the minimum 150 hours of aviation experience required by Part 142 training.

Words of Caution

“If your organisation operates as both a Part 142 flying school and an RTO, be aware that ASQA can request evidence of your adherence to quality training standards and regulatory compliance at any given moment. Failure to provide satisfactory proof of compliance with the guidelines laid out in 142.015 – which covers the definitions and parameters for Part 142 operations, may lead ASQA to conclude that your organisation cannot demonstrate compliance with pertinent Commonwealth legislation. In such cases, they’ll take actions they find suitable.”

In Conclusion

To navigate the complex interplay between RTOs, CASA regulations, and VET qualifications requires a comprehensive understanding and rigorous adherence to standards. Whether you are an RTO, Part 141, or Part 142 institution, it’s crucial to ensure that training practices are compliant with all governing bodies. Remember, the end goal is to provide students with the best possible training that not only meets educational standards but also safety and operational requirements in the aviation sector.

Advice for the Road

It’s crucial that all training organisations, whether or not they are registered, ensure alignment with all regulatory requirements.

If you find yourself at the crossroads of these regulations, seek insights from qualified counsel. It’s always better to be well-informed than left wondering.