If you could rewrite the laws...

[Guest Crezzi]

Why couldn't CASA optionally issue a PPL(ultralight), with our usual restrictions as conditions?

Theres nothing to stop CASA doing so - it's what happens in the UK. The CAA issue a microlight PPL (or now a microlight NPPL) on the recommendation of the BMAA (Pom equivalent of RA-Aus). But it's not an ICAO compliant licence so it doesn't confer any rights to fly in another countries airspace. Same applies to the FAA sport pilot licence.

 

There is little enough international agreement about what constitutes a microlight / ultralight / recreational aircraft let alone recognition of overseas licences or the agreement on syllabi that would imply.

 

As an aside Al - which country(s) do you think have a better arrangement overall than here ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Al B]

But it's not an ICAO compliant licence so it doesn't confer any rights to fly in another countries airspace. Same applies to the FAA sport pilot licence.

After doing some more research I see you are correct. I was basing my theory on the PPL(glider) that the FAA issues and Australia doesn't - I've heard glider pilots complain about how hard it can be to fly overseas, and how a PPL(glider) would help. But as you say, glider is ICAO recognized, ultralight is not.

 

I guess flying LSAs easily overseas is wishful thinking at present :)

 

Was the old CASA restricted PPL (with 'no cross country' as a restriction) recognized overseas? If so, in a perfect world a PPL with MTOW + passenger restrictions would be recognized as well. I'm just trying to find a loophole...

 

As an aside Al - which country(s) do you think have a better arrangement overall than here ?

You'd know far more about the UK side then me, but the NPPL + Permit to Fly system doesn't look too bad. My personal perspective is of someone who would like 'GA lite', but without making things more expensive and complicated for the ultralight gents.

 

I stole the following from the net:

 

As well as the microlight rating, the NPPL will also provide for a Single Engine Piston (SEP) aeroplane rating. If you have the SEP rating you will be able to fly aircraft of up to 2,000kg (Piper PA-28s, Cessna 172s etc.) as long as they are so-called simple aircraft types. That essentially means no retractable undercarriages, variable-pitch props, forced induction engines, pressurised cabins, or aircraft which cruise in excess of 140knots.

 

All of these limitations can be removed by doing extra "Differences" training. The same will apply to the difference between tailwheel and nosewheel aircraft - you will have to be specifically trained on whichever one (or both) you want to fly.

Who'd ever want to fly something more then 2 tons for fun? You could take a friend, a decent amount of fuel and enough gear to go camping. So what's the downside?

 

I like the FAAs sport pilot license too. Although it's more restrictive then ours (cruise speeds, retracts, fixed pitch props etc) there are controlled airspace endorsements AND no silly splitting the rental fleet in 1 of 2 groups.

 

The lack of a controlled airspace endorsement really bugs me. If recreational pilots in a heap of other countries can have it, why can't we?

 

Cheers,

 

Al

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I guess flying LSAs easily overseas is wishful thinking at present

I've flown microlight/ultralight/recreational in 20+ countries so certainly isn't impossible. Air law varies a lot (look at the local "customisations" here) but most countries recognise prior experience. Hiring sub-GA aircraft generally isn't legal overseas anyway so it's easier to fly with a mate/instructor or take your own aircraft. The latter opens up a whole different can of worms though !

 

Was the old CASA restricted PPL (with 'no cross country' as a restriction) recognized overseas?

I don't know for sure but doubtful

 

You'd know far more about the UK side then me, but the NPPL + Permit to Fly system doesn't look too bad. My personal perspective is of someone who would like 'GA lite', but without making things more expensive and complicated for the ultralight gents.

The UK NPPL came about after the European states agreed a common standard for the PPL. Each country had things they insisted must be in the syllabus so the end result (JAA PPL) was bloated to 45 hours and aimed squarely as a lead in to CPL /ATPL. The UK recognised the advantages of a licence for recreational flying and the "National" PPL was the result. Actually there are several types of NPPL qualification -

 

microlight NPPL is pretty much equivalent to the RAAus pilot cert except you are limited to max 450 MTOW (legal definition of an "ultralight" in Europe).

 

single engine piston NPPL is basically the PPL "lite" you are thinking off - upto 2000kg MTOW but no "complex" types.

 

Theres also a self launch motor glider NPPL.

 

As national licences theres no automatic recognition in other countries but most European countries have arrangements to allow NPPL holders to fly British microlights in their airspace (usually permission is required and sometimes with certain restrictions). A microlight NPPL holder has to do difference training to get a SEP NPPL so in practise its not really that much different to going from a RA-Aus PC to CASA PPL.

 

The permit to fly is a different matter entirely. Basically it is required for all aircraft which don't/can't have a CoA including micro/ultralights. It requires an annual inspection and check flight by an approved person. Whilst bringing this system into Aus might benefit some GA types (especially kit built) it would be a huge change for RA-Aus that I don't think most aircraft owners would be too happy about.

 

The lack of a controlled airspace endorsement really bugs me. If recreational pilots in a heap of other countries can have it, why can't we?

I was appalled when I moved to Aus & discovered I couldn't just request transit through CTA. It was pretty much routine on most XC flights in the UK even in trikes & low performance fixed wing. I have to say though that the more I saw & heard of other pilots here I began to understand why it wasn't allowed. TBH I wasn't entirely disappointed when the CTA endorsement fell through. Some sort of arrangement allowing CTA transits would be a major safety improvement but I'm concerned that the repercussions of the first incident of "cowboy" behaviour would cost the movement dear.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[monty]

Personally, I'd like to see GA split into Private (more correctly "Recreational") and Commercial. This would bring all the GA Private and Recreational activities under "Recreational Aviation" and have it self-administered the way RA-Aus is now under the guidance and supervision by CASA. Blackrod,

 

I'm with you totally but it seems to simple for anyone to take any notice.

 

Too much bureaucratic Bull Sh.. wanting to make it difficult to have safe and affordable fun.

 

Monty

[Guest Crezzi]

I can't see any reason for any differences in training or in licencing for someone who wants to fly a light aircraft (single piston engine, up to four seats) for non commercial/recreational reasons.

A 4 or 5 fold increase in TOW does make some differences ! Thats why PPL holders can't automatically fly RA-Aus aircraft without difference training.

 

If RA-Aus were allowed to introduce a "heavy" endorsement for this genre of aircraft, how would it be any cheaper than the current conversion of RA-Aus PC to PPL ?

 

Have a look at the syllabus for the RA-Aus CTA endorsement - I suspect that is pretty close to CPL level & would have required rather more training than most PPL holders got. A "heavy" endorsement would be much the same.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Al B]

A 4 or 5 fold increase in TOW does make some differences ! Thats why PPL holders can't automatically fly RA-Aus aircraft without difference training.

If you're going to transition from a 172 to a rag and tube microlight, I agree extra training is vital. Remember it IS possible to do a PPL in a GA registered Tecnam, or Cessna Skycatcher, and as time goes on this may become more and more common - there are obviously no handling differences between a GA LSA and an RAA LSA.

 

If RA-Aus were allowed to introduce a "heavy" endorsement for this genre of aircraft, how would it be any cheaper than the current conversion of RA-Aus PC to PPL ?

I'm guessing it'd take an experienced RAA pilot several hours to get the hang of a 172. On the other hand I think a PPL conversion will take 10+ hours, a long flight test, extra textbooks, an exam fee, and a medical. I think the RAA would have to work pretty hard to make it as expensive.

 

I agree the CTA endorsement is pretty in-depth. However it could be done for maybe $70 an hour less then GA training.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Remember it IS possible to do a PPL in a GA registered Tecnam, or Cessna Skycatcher, and as time goes on this may become more and more common - there are obviously no handling differences between a GA LSA and an RAA LSA.I'm guessing it'd take an experienced RAA pilot several hours to get the hang of a 172.

Indeed but the suggestion was for the recreational use of any 4 place single engine piston - 182, Mooney, Bonanza, Yak 18, SR22, Turbo Arrow ...

 

On the other hand I think a PPL conversion will take 10+ hours, a long flight test, extra textbooks, an exam fee, and a medical. I think the RAA would have to work pretty hard to make it as expensive. I agree the CTA endorsement is pretty in-depth. However it could be done for maybe $70 an hour less then GA training.

A class2 medical would probably be required for 4 seats and judging by the RA-Aus syllabus for CTA, I reckon a "heavy" endorsement would be at least 10 hours. Obviously these would have to be flown in a 4 seat type so no savings there.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

The whole issue of "medicals" is a boondoggle, with an empire built around it.

 

What most people don't realise is the origin of such "standards". It all started with military screening standards to EXCLUDE about 95% of applicants for flying training ---- what it was NOT, was a set of standards based on the physical needs to actually fly an aircraft.

 

Since I first started, there have been significant changes, as a result of pressure to "relax" standards. When I first started, for an initial medical ---- no vision correction was allowable ---- but once you had a license --- you could use glasses as age caught up with you. That "initial medical" standard was a nonsense --- as obviously you could fly with glasses.

 

There are many other examples. In recent years, the battles (including major successes) for persons with non-standard color perception has been most interesting, all the court wins have essentially been because "the authorities" could not demonstrate ANY operational safety reason for the "standards".

 

Hundred of Australian pilot owe a debt of gratitude to Dr.A.M.Pape, a DAME in Geelong, for so successfully fighting these battles, over many years.

 

But "the authorities" are once again trying to "tighten up", color perception tests have becomes an annual event in UK, there is pressure to follow suite here ----- all without any operational safety justification.

 

The FAA has done some huge (and therefor statistically valid) studies on the relation between "medical standards" and pilots suffering in-flight medical incidents ----- and were unable to show any connection, regardless of the class of medical.

 

Thus, FAA recommended "driver's license" standards for the original FAA RPL medical, but the US equivalent of the DAMEs Association went political ( think of the loss of $$$$ income) and the DoT overruled FAA.

 

This is why the National Drivers License standard makes so much sense --- in the real world, a driver collapsing at the wheel is far more likely to do him or herself and other road users serious injury -----

 

-----for the aviation medical we don't even get the exposure stats. correct, but assume a pilot spends 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in the air.

 

Far too many "aviation rules" have no basis in risk analysis, but once they are on the books, Oh!! Boy!!, are they hard to get rid of ----- the wiseheads (with no idea of the origin of a rule) will nod, look very serious and say something like: " Well, I'm certain there was a really good reason for this rule".

 

There has been a fairly wide analysis of CASA "rules", based on AS/NZ 4360:1999 Risk Management Standard, you should have seen the resistance when this kind of rational approach was applied, and showed a good proportion of the rules (most of which are administrative, not really "safety" related) should not be on the books at all ( and in many countries are not).

 

The UK NPPL ( there are equivalents in other European countries) is more or less the same syllabus as when I got my first PPL in UK, just as the RAOz syllabus is the old DCA PPL, before all sorts of "enhancements" were added. The JAA/EASA PPL had just become bureaucratically overloaded, the medical renewal costs alone are seriously scary.

 

The old PPL® made a lot of sense, the "GFPT" is, in my opinion, an abortion of system.

 

Can anybody explain to me the logic of the PPL NAV training (which has nothing to do with a Daily Inspection) qualifying a pilot to sign for a daily. Quite a few glider tug and para. jump pilots flew for years and hundreds of hours on a PPL® ---- the GFPT put paid to that.

 

Guard very jealously what we have in Recreational Aviation in Australia, and remember "CASA" cannot just change the rules, only Parliament can do that ----- and we have had some notable successes, over the years, in having adverse changes to the rules "disallowed" in the Senate.

 

But to do that you need your associations for that, the cost of your membership is the cost of your freedom to fly as you do!!!

 

Regards,