Frequently Asked Questions
Not automatically. In Sigma’s Part 147/MTO pathways, modules are only one part of the outcome. You also need the applicable MEA Units of Competency assessed as competent, the required practical experience, and the regulator application. If you use CASA’s separate self-study pathway, modules still do not stand alone — you also need the CASA practical experience logbook and licence application. In either case, “I have my modules” is not the same as “I can be issued a licence today”.
No. Sigma can deliver the training and assessment pathway, run or organise the relevant exams, and prepare or submit the required training paperwork where applicable, but CASA issues the licence. You must still meet CASA prerequisites, including practical experience, and apply to the regulator.
Because they are not the same thing. CASA module exams are licensing knowledge exams. AQF Units of Competency must be assessed against the full unit requirements, including knowledge evidence and performance evidence. One does not automatically replace the other, which is why Sigma treats AQF competency and licensing exams as related but separate requirements.
No. Competency in a Unit of Competency is not a percentage grade. It is a competent / not-yet-competent decision against the full unit requirements. A 50% result does not establish competency, and even a CASA module pass by itself does not prove full UoC knowledge evidence, let alone the practical evidence.
No — CASA Basics / CAR 31 Basics do not operate under the same 10-year rule that applies to Part 66 module exams. They can still be relevant through CASA’s RPL mapping process. The key distinction is Basics versus Part 66 Modules: they are different things and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Usually the issue is Part 66 module exams, not Basics. As a general rule, Part 66 module exams must be within the allowable window at the time of licence application unless they have already been applied to a licence outcome in the way the MOS allows. Basics are a separate legacy exam set and should not be confused with Part 66 module expiry rules.
Because it is a very specific CASA pathway, not a qualification pathway. CASA describes it as self-study using commercial Part 66 material, CASA / Aspeq-run exams, and a CASA practical experience logbook. It does not award AQF Units of Competency or a qualification, it currently does not cater for exclusion removal, and it gives you less future leverage if you later want formal UoCs, a diploma, or a cleaner pathway into additional categories. It can suit the right candidate, but it is usually not the best fit if you want structured support, formal credentials, or maximum flexibility.
RPL & Gap Training is for experienced engineers who can already evidence real work and only need the gaps assessed or closed. Workplace Delivery is a structured apprenticeship / traineeship style pathway with a formal training plan, scheduled support, workplace evidence collection, and regular oversight. The standard is the same — the delivery model is different.
Usually, yes. Sigma’s AQF engineering pathways are built around real aircraft maintenance evidence. For Workplace Delivery you need employment, a suitable workplace, and a nominated supervisor. For RPL & Gap, you need current or recent evidence from real aircraft maintenance work. If you are not yet in industry, entry pathways such as AIR or pre-apprenticeship style programs are the better starting point.
Yes, where you can provide valid AQF certification documentation or an authenticated VET transcript. That is a credit transfer process, not a discretionary favour. If the unit is not equivalent, not current enough for the target outcome, or does not map cleanly, Sigma may need to assess RPL or issue gap training instead.
No. A Diploma can streamline the Units of Competency side of a Part 147 / MTO licensing pathway, but it is not the licence itself and it is not mandatory for every possible pathway. You still need the applicable licensing exams, practical experience, and regulator application requirements.
Your supervisor or employer can verify tasks and workplace evidence, but final competence decisions are made by Sigma assessors. That separation matters because it keeps assessment independent, auditable, and defensible.
Usually because people are comparing unlike products. Sigma built its Part 147 and RTO systems from scratch, assesses against the full unit requirements, carries both CASA and ASQA compliance load, and includes significant support and admin in the model. When a course includes AQF assessment, RPL mapping, competency conversations, invigilated exams, regulator paperwork, and ongoing support, it should cost more than a thin “exam access only” offer.
Because the pricing model is component-based and applied consistently. Sigma prices the actual course components, delivery mode, and included items instead of burying cost in opaque quoting or unnecessary block release. That can make individual pathways look cheaper where you already have experience, can use RPL or credit transfer, or only need a defined set of outcomes.
For many Sigma courses, yes — the course page presents the defined course fee and explains what is included. If something sits outside the course fee, such as optional extra practical training or travel to an exam session, it should be disclosed before you incur the cost.