If you could rewrite the laws...

[Al B]

Hi All,

 

Let's pretend that CASA have decided to totally rewrite the rules for recreational aviation in Australia, and have appointed you their chief recreational flying consultant. You have full control to decide what system should be in place for the 'weekend warriors' - ALL pilots who want to fly for fun (ultralights, LSA, gliders, experimental, hang gliders, Cessna 172s etc)

 

As part of your research, you look at several countries. Most of them have the traditional GA path, with a PPL as the basic first license that lets you fly almost anything under 5700kg with the right endorsements. Many have additional recreational options.

 

Australia has non-government bodies such as the RAA, HGFA, GFA, SAA etc. Some aircraft are on the RAA register, some GA. Most bodies issue their own license, and you need that license to fly aircraft being looked after by that body. Most recreational aircraft have a weight limit, lowish stall speeds and 2 seats max to reduce liability.

The USA has two recreational options.

 

First, there are true 'ultralights' - slow single seaters that weigh less then 115kg empty and carry only 20L of fuel. These are classed as vehicles, not aircraft, and do not legally require ANY training. You can't fly over built-up areas or in controlled airspace.

 

Next there are 'Light Sport Aircraft', which consists of things like Jabirus, Tecnams etc. These can be flown with a 'Sport Pilot' license issues by the government. This requires a minimum of 20 hours of training and lets you fly day VFR in LSAs. You can carry only one passenger, and cannot fly in controlled airspace without additional training. No medical is required.

 

Canada has several levels of ultralight certificate, as well as a 'Recreational' pilot's license. This license allows Day VFR in up to 4 seat aircraft however only a single passenger may be carried. It takes a minimum of 25 hours and required a medical from a family doctor. Controlled airspace is allowed.

 

The UK has a 'National Private Pilot License'. There is a 30 hour minimum and permits up to 3 passengers. A medical statement from a family doctor is required.

There is information on additional countries at wikipediaSo. Keeping in mind the skies must be kept safe for fare-paying passengers and innocent people on the ground, what rules would you draw up? Keep the system as is or something totally new?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Hi All,Let's pretend that CASA have decided to totally rewrite the rules for recreational aviation in Australia,

Actually they have - it is (or was) called CASR1988 Part 103 (Sport & Recreational Aviation Operations) and Part 149 (Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations).

 

After many years of gestation, they were published as Notice of Proposed Rule Making around 2007. And have been "several years away" ever since.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[facthunter]

Weight Limit on PPL.

 

Re weight limit on a PPL, Don't think there is one. AS long as you have the required endorsements.

 

The problem with GA and below. Nobody seems to care whether is survives or not. (except the people that are doing it). This country has an aviation history where it has punched way above it's weight. New Zealand also. The only section getting listened to is airlines. Nev

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

This poll is like some countries elections - the total votes = 133% !

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Keep things basically the way they are, but do away with landing fees!;)

 

 

[sseeker]

Re weight limit on a PPL, Don't think there is one. AS long as you have the required endorsements.The problem with GA and below. Nobody seems to care whether is survives or not. (except the people that are doing it). This country has an aviation history where it has punched way above it's weight. New Zealand also. The only section getting listened to is airlines. Nev

Weight limit for basic PPL is 5700kg but you can upgrade it with a further endorsement/type rating (not sure which).

 

----------------

 

I voted CASA issues the licence. This would do away with the constant separation of the two bodies and hopefully bring the two into one. This would also bring up the price of flying as I'm pretty sure CASA makes schools pay fees and it would also mean the existing RA-Aus instructors would be out of a job, LAMEs would have to maintain aircraft etc...

 

If we could keep all of our rules regarding maintenance etc but just had CASA issue an "Ultralight Pilot Licence" & control the syllabus, as I'm sure some people know of schools that don't follow the RA-Aus published syllabus, I think it would resolve most of the controversy between the two groups.

 

-Andrew

 

P.S My response is open to people blasting me with anti-CASA statements (Committee Against Sustainable Aviation?)

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

P.S My response is open to people blasting me with anti-CASA statements (Committee Against Sustainable Aviation?)

Someone said to me recently their motto is: "we're not happy until you're not happy!"

 

 

[winsor68]

Weight limit for basic PPL is 5700kg but you can upgrade it with a further endorsement/type rating (not sure which).----------------

 

I voted CASA issues the licence. This would do away with the constant separation of the two bodies and hopefully bring the two into one. This would also bring up the price of flying as I'm pretty sure CASA makes schools pay fees and it would also mean the existing RA-Aus instructors would be out of a job, LAMEs would have to maintain aircraft etc...

 

If we could keep all of our rules regarding maintenance etc but just had CASA issue an "Ultralight Pilot Licence" & control the syllabus, as I'm sure some people know of schools that don't follow the RA-Aus published syllabus, I think it would resolve most of the controversy between the two groups.

 

-Andrew

 

P.S My response is open to people blasting me with anti-CASA statements (Committee Against Sustainable Aviation?)

In my opinion Casa is not currently qualified to administer light aviation effectively... but certainly agree that more structure is required for Ra-Aus commercial operations. If done correctly it would not need any fee changes because many more people would take up flying. I think Casa should stick to the RPT side of Aviation.

 

 

[Al B]

11 people so far have said they'd introduce some minor changes - please let us know what you'd change!

 

I have my personal opinions on the matter but I'd rather wait till I hear more viewpoints :)

 

Crezzi personally I think by the time CASA gets the CASRs finished, we'll all be in flying cars.

 

My favourite part (which I can't link to because CASA's website is playing up) is a project entitled something like "Early implementation of certain parts of Part 103 via CAO". Part of the story goes that the Ballooning mob asked for some changes to the CAOs, but they were told "wait, it'll be fixed in the relevant CASR" - this was back in 1991. The CASRs then got delayed again and again, so this project aimed to amend the CAOs as asked for in the first place. The only catch is, the project status was last updated 2 years ago!

 

Imagine if CASA were run like a business - many people would have been fired by now.

 

 

[winsor68]

11 people so far have said they'd introduce some minor changes - please let us know what you'd change!I have my personal opinions on the matter but I'd rather wait till I hear more viewpoints :)

 

Crezzi personally I think by the time CASA gets the CASRs finished, we'll all be in flying cars.

 

My favourite part (which I can't link to because CASA's website is playing up) is a project entitled something like "Early implementation of certain parts of Part 103 via CAO". Part of the story goes that the Ballooning mob asked for some changes to the CAOs, but they were told "wait, it'll be fixed in the relevant CASR" - this was back in 1991. The CASRs then got delayed again and again, so this project aimed to amend the CAOs as asked for in the first place. The only catch is, the project status was last updated 2 years ago!

 

Imagine if CASA were run like a business - many people would have been fired by now.

I rest my case... CASA doesn't have the skills base to manage anything but large airline type operations... time to let the light side of aviation go its own way and use common sense approaches to minimize risk.

 

 

[nong]

Weight limit for basic PPL is 5700kg but you can upgrade it with a further endorsement/type rating (not sure which).----------------

 

I voted CASA issues the licence. This would do away with the constant separation of the two bodies and hopefully bring the two into one. This would also bring up the price of flying as I'm pretty sure CASA makes schools pay fees and it would also mean the existing RA-Aus instructors would be out of a job, LAMEs would have to maintain aircraft etc...

 

If we could keep all of our rules regarding maintenance etc but just had CASA issue an "Ultralight Pilot Licence" & control the syllabus, as I'm sure some people know of schools that don't follow the RA-Aus published syllabus, I think it would resolve most of the controversy between the two groups.

 

-Andrew

 

P.S My response is open to people blasting me with anti-CASA statements (Committee Against Sustainable Aviation?)

The long established 5700 kg limit has indeed been ditched as it is no longer needed. The limits of each licence type are now defined by other means such as whether the aircraft is multi-crew.

 

 

[monty]

I Don't think I now enough about rec aviation and different types of aircraft to say if any changes need to be made.I have only been flying for 16 months and only have 100+ hours. The rules suit me in my Drifter out in western Qld flying for fun, but I do understand that they might not suit a very large number of pilots with more powerful aircraft or a different geological location with different needs.

 

I hope this makes some sence. Just my thoughts.

 

Monty

 

 

[Admin]

its down to 105% total now... oh the votes also add up to one less then the total in the box below the poll... at the moment it says 19 when theres 20 in total... methinks ian may needa check it out

methinks (Ian) is that the poll has been set as multi-select :big_grin:

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

What changes would I make to the current system?

 

- MTOW increase to 760kg (While 600kg would pretty much cover 95% of everyone's needs now, I can see roadable aircraft coming to Australia one day, and I don't know how much they weigh. Electric aircraft could benefit from this too by being able to add more batteries, and therefore greater x/c endurance; 5-6 hours between recharges would be immensely practical.)

 

- limited entry to controlled airspace (I read in a Just Landed post quite a while ago where LSA pilots have a lane through, I think San Francisco or Los Angeles, airspace. This would mean creating new airspace for large cities. Not sure what CTA requirements would be needed, as this could simply mean additional Victor GA lanes.)

 

- An additional ten hours after gaining the Pilot Certificate before commencing X/C training (I've gained some nav knowledge in the 25nm area that will be useful when I start my x/c training this week.) This could be the equivalent of 30 hours minimum as in other countries.

 

And the more that RA-Aus can control licensing, the better off we will be by enjoying experimental aircraft such as electric. I can't see CASA endorsing that type of aircraft for a very very long time.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

We must absolutely keep the present structure of Sports and Rec. Aviation in Australia. It is the foundation for the success of (amongst other things) RAOz, ne. AUF.

 

Under CASA and its predecessors, the growth of Sports and Rec. would never have happened. It is that simple.

 

 

 

The GFA, AUF/RAOz and similar all exist because of political directions ----- NOT any concessions, initiatives or favors from the predecessors of CASA.

 

If CASA was to get directly involved in this end of pilot licensing, or start applying GA maintenance rules, costs would skyrocket, and the present flexibility would disappear.

 

Do you really want to pay CAR 35 Professional Engineer charges and CASA approval charges every time you want to do more than pump up your tyres, ie do some minor modification to your aircraft???

 

Do you know that (due to CASA rules on maintenance) you cannot "legally" wash your windscreen, because you don't have "approved data???!!! ---- and washing a windscreen (or the whole aircraft) is "maintenance", and all maintenance can only be performed with "approved data".

 

Attend one of the CASA briefings on "Pilot Maintenance" and learn why Schedule 8 doesn't always mean what it says, because you will NOT have approved data, or will not be able to comply with the approved data.

 

Learn why you cannot legally change or charge a battery, even though Schedule 8 seems to say otherwise. Learn why you can't "inspect" wheel bearing, before you repack them, having repaired a tyre or tube ---- without "jacking" the aircraft!!

 

There is a legislative instrument that (beneficially) eases the very restrictive Australian definition of "approve data", in effect changing it to "acceptable data", but for the moment I can't find the number, I hope it hasn't expired with no renewal. We put a lot of time and effort into this simple instrument, so that "approved/acceptable data" in AU would be the same as US/CA/NZ, but there was a lot of opposition from within the "traditionalists" within CASA.

 

That these sort of maintenance rules are seldom enforced does NOT make it OK.

 

It is the complex, convoluted and contradictory Australian Civil Aviation Act and Legislation that makes "inadvertent criminals" of many of us, day after day.

 

Part 103 and Part 149 (149 was base on NZ Part 149) were started in 1996 --- where are they??

 

Keep this out of Sports and Rec. aviation, if you want to have this sector survive and prosper.

 

Regards,

 

 

[bluey the fly]

I chose to keep it mostly the same with some changes like allow enter to CTA for planes that can fly min 100k so as to be able to keep up with GA in the circuit.

 

650kg max for RAA...:thumb_up:

 

 

[Bryon]

My thoughts...

 

MTOW to 650-700Kg or we could end up with a whole lot of poorly maintained C150, C152s etc that are flying time bombs with the potential to very quickly give us a bad name and a reason for CASA to take over

 

limited entry to controlled airspace (VFR lanes) This is a safety issue.

 

We are getting clearance to 8000ft, how much higher do you want to go?

 

Apart from that, why should we change? If I want to do anything extra, I can convert to GA to do it. Leave GA to commercial operations and RAA to fun flyers

 

If everyone is convinced that the existing model is unworkable or needs changing, dont try and re-invent the wheel, look at what is working overseas and use that model

 

As I said, just my thoughts

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

I voted CASA issues the licence.

Sseeker,

 

What are you smoking?? It must be strong stuff. Do you have any idea of the costs and delays of even getting an SPL right now??

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it !!

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Folks,We must absolutely keep the present structure of Sports and Rec. Aviation in Australia. It is the foundation for the success of (amongst other things) RAOz, ne. AUF.

 

Under CASA and its predecessors, the growth of Sports and Rec. would never have happened. It is that simple.

 

The GFA, AUF/RAOz and similar all exist because of political directions ----- NOT any concessions, initiatives or favors from the predecessors of CASA.

 

If CASA was to get directly involved in this end of pilot licensing, or start applying GA maintenance rules, costs would skyrocket, and the present flexibility would disappear.

 

Do you really want to pay CAR 35 Professional Engineer charges and CASA approval charges every time you want to do more than pump up your tyres, ie do some minor modification to your aircraft???

 

Do you know that (due to CASA rules on maintenance) you cannot "legally" wash your windscreen, because you don't have "approved data???!!! ---- and washing a windscreen (or the whole aircraft) is "maintenance", and all maintenance can only be performed with "approved data".

 

Attend one of the CASA briefings on "Pilot Maintenance" and learn why Schedule 8 doesn't always mean what it says, because you will NOT have approved data, or will not be able to comply with the approved data.

 

Learn why you cannot legally change or charge a battery, even though Schedule 8 seems to say otherwise. Learn why you can't "inspect" wheel bearing, before you repack them, having repaired a tyre or tube ---- without "jacking" the aircraft!!

 

There is a legislative instrument that (beneficially) eases the very restrictive Australian definition of "approve data", in effect changing it to "acceptable data", but for the moment I can't find the number, I hope it hasn't expired with no renewal. We put a lot of time and effort into this simple instrument, so that "approved/acceptable data" in AU would be the same as US/CA/NZ, but there was a lot of opposition from within the "traditionalists" within CASA.

 

That these sort of maintenance rules are seldom enforced does NOT make it OK.

 

It is the complex, convoluted and contradictory Australian Civil Aviation Act and Legislation that makes "inadvertent criminals" of many of us, day after day.

 

Part 103 and Part 149 (149 was base on NZ Part 149) were started in 1996 --- where are they??

 

Keep this out of Sports and Rec. aviation, if you want to have this sector survive and prosper.

 

Regards,

With regs like the above it is a wonder anyone can get in the air. it just proves outright what a complete waste of space CASA really is. About time CASA was put up against the wall and made to correct this mess and not allowed to introduce any changes untill they sort this mess out.

 

 

[Yenn]

I disagree CASA is not a waste of space, but their reason for being is flight safety with the emphasis on airlines. If CASA could shut down Recreational flying it would be beneficial to their aim of safety for airlines. So far they have not really seriously tried to shut us down, but they will if we cause problems. As much as we may dislike CASA they have a job to do, even if they attack it from a beaurocrats viewpoint.

 

 

[Al B]

OK, I was holding off for a bit, but here goes. Massive Rant incoming

 

We keep hearing about how good we have it in Australia. After doing some research, I think that's a load of crap.

 

We have a regulator who doesn't want to bother with managing the recreational side of things, so they've palmed it off onto lots of groups, each with their own rules. Even though most groups basically want the same thing (and the RAA do a bloody good job given the circumstances) there is a massive duplication of work. Each group manages their own licenses, membership databases, billing etc.

 

If you just want to fly one kind of aircraft it isn't too bad. However if you want to expand your experience it gets ugly quickly. Want to fly gyros AND ultralights? That's 2 lots of annual fees and 2 different licenses.

 

Is your usual RAA registered trike is being repaired, but your mate has offered his HGFA registered Trike? Sorry, bad luck - you have the wrong license. Does that motorglider look fun to take on a trip? An RAA pilot might take a few hours to get the hang of treating it like a glorified Jabiru. However you need to join the GFA , have at least 20 flights in a glider, including 2 solos of an hours duration, before you can take it for a spin.

 

Good luck flying overseas. Many places will only recognize a CASA-issued license. If we could optionally apply for a PPL(Ultralights), then it'd be so easy to go for a fly on your next overseas holiday.

 

My pet hate is having multiple aircraft registers. A Jabiru doesn't know if it has letters or numbers on the side. It doesn't handle any differently at the same weight. The only difference is, in theory it is safer if it is maintained to GA standards. So why restrict Jabiru 24-1234 to RAA pilots and Jabiru VH-ABC to GA pilots? Why not let the pilot decide if he or she wants to spend the extra $50 an hour renting a LAME-maintaned aircraft?

 

If we were using either the US's or the UK's system most of these problems would go away.

 

I think Australia is missing a license type. In my fantasy world there should be something like

 

Ultralight Certificate ---> Recreational PPL ---> PPL

 

The idea being, someone who flies a microlight with 50 knots VNE doesn't have much in common with someone who wants to burn through CTA @ 120knots, so why have the one group (the RAA) representing both? If you enjoy flying 'low and slow' in a powered parachute, any 'low flying' rules relevant for RV-6's are just going to tick you off. And if you fly a Flightdesign CT, you'd resent being told that ultralights are 'too slow' to be allowed to land at Archerfield.

 

Cessna 172s are hardly big scary monsters that require skygods to master. Any Tecnam/Jabiru/Foxbat driver can easily get the hang of one in a few hours tops. If we had a recreational PPL it could still have the 'only 1 passenger max' limitation to reduce liability, and a limit on stall speed for safety. There could also be optional CTA training which would have zero cost impact on ultralight enthusiasts (who hold a different certificate). There would be far more aircraft to choose from.

 

Finally there should be several standards for all light aircraft maintenance - call them owner-maintained / experimental, commerical, and charter. The aircraft owner should be free to choose which standard they want to maintain too. Owner-maintained/Experimental is just that. It's the cheapest option but no use is permitted aside from private flight and training for the owner. The commercial standard would permit some pilot maintenance but would have LAME oversight - it would allow any use, including training, but excluding fare-paying passengers. The charter standard is most strict but permits any use, including charter flights.

 

Note that for private flying, the pilot would be free to rent ANY aircraft that they are licensed to fly. At the moment we have the ridiculous situation where RAA pilots must fly aircraft with the least maintenance requirements only - we can't fly the better mantained (but more expensive) option. PPLs can't choose to save money and fly aircraft maintained to a lower standard. Under the proposed system, everyones aircraft rentral choices open up immensely.

 

OK, I feel much better now.

 

Cheers,

 

Al

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

we can't fly the better mantained (sic) (but more expensive) option.

Al B, Vastly greater cost doesn't equal "better". More paperwork doesn't equal "better". Buying what is a mass production automotive part, at ten times the price, because it is from a "CAR 30" supplier, and is therefor now an "aeronautical part" doesn't equal "better".

Buying wheel bearings that came from Bearing Services, but are thirteen time price of the same bearing bought over the counter, because they come through a CAR 30 supplier, and the invoice double as the "trace" document that CASA wants, does not make it "better".

 

Buying "aviation grade" aluminium sheet from a CAR 30 supplier, at about three times the price of "commercial grade", then have it delivered by the industrial stockists' truck that delivers exactly the same Alcoa product I use in cars, doesn't make it better.

 

The administration of Rec. Aviation in UK is a bit of a mess, there is effectively no self administration in US, but Canada has a rather good approach to the "little end of town", including "owner maintenance" for a wide range of (older) GA aircraft.

 

Yes, it costs here, and is fragmented, but the answer is not CASA, but greater co-operation within the Australian self-administrative bodies ---- but don't hold your breath.

 

Yenn,

 

I don't have the current figures (but little changes) but last time I had current CASA manpower figures, something like 80% of operational CASA staff were NOT involved with airlines.

 

CASA won't be shutting anybody down in Sports and Rec., that will be a political decision ----- have a real close look at how self administration came about in the first place --- read my last long post.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Al B]

I agree that from a practical perspective there may be bugger-all difference. However CASA obviously believes the paperwork is safer, or else they'd let GA stop using it.

 

I guess my point is our safety regulator is happy to let an RAA pilot fly a Jabiru that they consider 'less safe', but prohibit him or her for paying extra to rent a 'safer' (again, from their perspective) Jabiru of the same make and model. And if the 'less safe' Jabiru is good enough for us, why is it too dangerous for a PPL?

 

There may be no self-administration in the US, but does it make a difference? I'd swap our system for theirs if I had the choice - very, very few rules for true ultralights, and Sport Pilots can enter CTA with proper training.

 

Even if our sporting bodies got together we still won't have a license that is recognized widely overseas - only CASA can issue that.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Just because a recreational licence was issued by NAA (Eg CASA rather RA-Aus) wouldn't make it internationally recognised as it would still be sub-ICAO.

 

Have a look at the NPPL in UK for example - the "N" is for "National" which is a bit of a clue. Some other European countries will allow you to fly in their airspace with this but its not a right & in most cases permission is required.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Al B]

Hi John,

 

The FAA issues a PPL(glider) - I think in most countries you can fly on a PPL after some checks, but you must abide by any restrictions on your home license. Why couldn't CASA optionally issue a PPL(ultralight), with our usual restrictions as conditions?