Is an RA certificate recognised overseas?

[rdarby]

A PPL is recognised internationaly. If I go overseas and try to hire or just do a lesson, would they recognise our certificates? Given that each country seems to approach recreational aviation differently I suspect it may not be simple but was wondering if anyone had tried this.

 

Ryan

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I've flown in maybe a couple of dozen countries & your suspicion is quite correct RAAus pilot certificates are non-ICAO & hence have no automatic validity outside Australia. Likewise other countries recreational/ultralight/microlight licence/certificates don't entitle you to fly RAAus aircraft here - the operations manual requires you to be an RAAus member.

 

Many countries do recognise other national qualifications - for example most European countries allow foreign micro/ultralight aircraft to be flown within their airspace using the pilots overseas qualification. In some cases specific permission is required from each countries National Airworthiness Authority (CASA equivalent). This is often as simple as faxing your pilot & aircraft documents and in some cases even this isn't necessary. Permission is usually granted for a limited time period only but its pretty easy to tour round Europe in your own micro/ultralight.

 

Flying a foreign micro/ultralight in its country of registration generally requires you to be a member of the appropriate organisation & to hold a national licence/certificate for that country. This doesn't mean that you have to redo all your training - the process might be as simple joining the appropriate organisation (many have short term membership for overseas visitors), doing a check flight and possibly sitting an airlaw exam. It all depends on the specific country.

 

I believe NZ allows you to fly for a limited period with your RAAus pilot certificate but in most other countries its probably going to be easier to just fly with a local instructor (unless you are planning on doing a lot of flying whilst you are there).

 

Hope that helps

 

John

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Ryan. I fly ultralights in Canada and Canadian rules are very restrictive for ultralight pilots from elsewhere. I can fly in the US under special permission (could do this even before Sport licence introduced) but other than that, not much else. Difficult to even get the various bodies to agree. The US Sport licence comes from the Canadian advanced ultralight rules but Canada will not follow suit (I asked) by making our rules same (ours are similar to Australia). I am heading off to Portugal to do a British ultralight licence in March to allow me to fly in most of Europe. And I am doing same in 2012 in Australia. I am hoping that the US Sport licence will eventually become a world standard but am not holding my breath. I have heard that Europe is trying to standardize on something similar to the Sport licence but not many details. I will have a better idea once I am in Europe. Geoff

 

 

[sleemanj]

I am hoping that the US Sport licence will eventually become a world standard but am not holding my breath.

I hope not, at least in so far as the limited US definition of Light Sport Aircraft that goes with it...

 

No multi engine

 

No inflight adjusting of prop

 

No retracts

 

No more than 120 knots

 

Far more limited than we have in NZ, I think the Canadian advanced ultralight is not so limited either?

 

As for the SPL itself, it has problems too, firstly that if you don't have a US drivers licence you still need to pass a full class 3 air medical, and if you fail a class 3 medical at any time even if you have a drivers licence, you are disqualified.

 

 

[facthunter]

The "certificates" or whatever you want to call them, would have to comply with something like ICAO to be accepted. This I would suggest, would certainly delay every change/improvement/exemption, that we might seek here, and is the last thing we need. At present we have enough trouble getting anywhere fast with the one local regulator. Tie it all in with a world-wide authority, to pass the buck to, and you wouldn't get anything done in TWO lifetimes. Forget about having your thing accepted overseas. Even an approved licence recognised under ICAO won't let you jump straight into an aeroplane in every country. You can transit it in YOUR aeroplane only with difficulty and with a lot of planning, and sometimes greasing of palms. Welcome to the real world. If you want to fly in another country, arrange with a pilot friend to do it unless you are going to be there long enough to make other processes worthwhile . Generalising , I know, but that is roughly how it is...Nev

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Sleemanj. You are right about the limitations with the Sport Licence. But a world standard of some sort is better than what we currently see. My Canadian ultralight permit (with endorsements for instructor & passenger carrying - yes Canada demands an instructor also have a passenger carrying rating!) with all my hours is worth nothing when flying outside Canada. I can fly to the US with special permission, but its limited. I can't fly legally in Europe, so I am getting my British permit. I can't fly legally in Australia (and NZ as well I presume) so therefore an Australian permit in 2012. A standard of some sort would help people like myself with the skills but not the local permit. Would also help manufacturers. Canadian standards for ultralights are less restrictive compared to the SPL except for the weights. But most of us wouldn't miss them. The SPL driver's licence medical is not really a big deal for most again. In Canada ultralight pilots use a Class 4 - co-signed by your doctor (not necessarily a Aviation medical specialist). Easy. I have a Class 3 as a current instructor. Same fail in Canada has same consequences as in the US. Diabetes for instance is a licence killer.

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Facthunter. I think what I am looking for is a simpler system of world regulation (forlorn I know). Two things in particular: being able to fly similar aircraft in different countries without getting a local licence, but just an authorised check ride; similar aircraft in different countries to simply the design & building. The new generation of ultralights are becoming so expensive. I am trying to convince a cousin who flies for Air Canada to replace his Cessna 180 on floats with a co-owned ultralight. He took one look at the costs and asked why he would want to spend $100,000 for a plane to fly at reasonable speed when he could buy a used Luscombe or something like that. I know, I am a dreamer. I know that Transport Canada (our regulatory body) doesn't like other countries telling them what to do. So our permits are different from others. Sad.

 

 

[sleemanj]

I don't know about other countries, but you would be able to fly here on your Canadian cert for up to a month an instructor says it's OK (endorse logbook, "supervises" what you are doing).

 

If you're staying longer than 30 days, then getting an NZ microlight pilots cert is no problem, provided you meet the requirements. At a minimum you must sit the Aviation Law exam, the rest can be "cross credited". It's largely left up to the instructor on the ground to decide what certificate level your experience qualifies you for.

 

In New Zealand at least, I don't see any issue with that, sitting law is sensible, and if you're here less than 30 days an instructor can keep you on the right track.

 

In any case, the primary issue here is that different countries have different ways of handling microlights/ultralights/lsa, some keep it close to the government, while others delegate it all to other "user run" organisations. The only real way is to press the relevant organisations to provide for more recognition. ICAO isn't really the vehicle to do that, the FAI is the organisation that should push for such things.

 

NB: Diabetes is not a medical killer here in the microlight (ultralight) world, I am type 1, neither does the failure of an aviation medical have an affect on any microlight medical.

 

 

[facthunter]

GDL, Cross fertilisation would be a good idea, but would you want the "dead hand" of something like (X)CAR limiting your freedoms. By having different rules WE collectively can say ' Hey... (as an example) New Zealand have a better system, do I have to go and live there, (wouldn't mind) or could we just have their freedoms here? Gradually raise the general standard by learning from each other and "leapfrogging". I had hoped Australia might show the way. Future will tell. ....Nev

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Sleemanj. NZ seems to have an enlightened approach to my (and presumably other countries) level of expertise. I looked at the requirements for NZ at one point (interest more than an real expectation of getting to NZ) but saw nothing like what you are saying. In comparison, in the US I would have to take the Sport Licence training program (and get permission from Homeland Security to even be allowed to do that). I am doing a British ultralight permit in Portugal in March, and they will forgive my dual training part but I need to do the solo hours (7) + tests before being issued a licence. In Canada, you would be forced to take the course (minimum 10 hrs). In Australia, as far as I have been informed (I am visiting in 2012) I need to follow a similar approach to the British. But most demand the extra training. I have little objection to that - who doesn't need a refresher at times - but for someone on a quick visit, can be a limitation.

 

Not sure what the best course of action is. Better cooperation between organisations, tacitly accepting what is allowed elsewhere. I am a dreamer I know.

 

Your comment on diabetes is fascinating. It is an absolute killer here with Type 1. Fail here medically and your ultralight permit is finished.

 

 

[GDL]

Hi FactHunter. I agree that government agencies involved in almost anything can be traumatic. I have sometimes thought that we should be allowed to do what we want (excluding hurting others) but governments liked to be seen to be managing things whether it was effective or not. In Canada I have seen very little of improvement, and any progress is painfully slow. I was constantly told it was because they were short of people to do the work, because of 9/11 (heard that one many times), and so on. Actually, the best system has always been the sharing of info like you and I and you and others because that can lead to movements. And movements can be powerful if directed.

 

Actually, its possible that the US Sport Licence may lead the way. Many governments like the restrictions placed there.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Y

 

our comment on diabetes is fascinating. It is an absolute killer here with Type 1.

Strange how different countries get wound up about different things.

 

The Canadian approach to owner maintenance of standard category aircraft is enlightened, mention that in Australia and the LAME union (and its airworthiness inspector members in CASA) go into meltdown.

 

I see lots of owner maintained aircraft in far better overall condition than many GA "LAME" maintained aircraft ---- because, at anything up to $180 per hour, most owners can only afford to have the minimum work done.

 

There has been an FAA protocol to fly up to PPL with diabetes for years, after CASA refused to recognize this for years, a successful Administrative Appeals Tribunal case now means you can hold a PPL with diabetes, provided you carefully follow the protocol, which is not onerous.

 

Regards,

 

 

[kgwilson]

A PPL is recognised internationaly.

PPL is only recognised to a point. You normally have to sit the Law exam and do a flight test with an instructor as a minimum to fly solo. Different countries different rules.

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Strange how different countries get wound up about different things.

Hence the undesirability of trying to get international harmonisation - every country has over-stringent regulations on something that they won't relax & the combined result is over regulation of everything !

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

GA LAMES wouldn't let GA a/c out of the hanger without the required maintainance done.

CFICARE,Don't even start me on what "required" means in a legal sense, particularly in view of the terms of Schedule 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, which contain a provision impossible with which to comply, and unknown anywhere else in the aviation world.

See Schedule 5, para. 2.7

 

2.7 Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.

 

Nowhere else that I have ever come across, is the LAME required by law to be clairvoyant, on pain of criminal sanction, if said required clairvoyance is defective. The cases are instructive, as is the cost of hangar keepers insurance.

 

This imposes an impossible burden on a LAME ---- making them responsible for what happens to an aircraft long after it has been signed out ---- and also provides some unscrupulous LAMEs with an avenue to demand work be done that need not be done.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I recently undertook a course for inspecting electrical equipment. During the course the instructor pointed out that the inspection and sign off was just a 'point in time' that showed the equipment complied and was safe at 'that point in time' and there was no way that the inspector could be held liable after that moment. If there was a problem in the future it would have to be proven without a doubt that the equipment was faulty at that time of sign off and a fraudulant act had been committed at the sign off. In the real world if the inspector had acted as per the regulation then he could not be held responsible for events after that point in time. As Bill pointed out LAMEs and other signitories are future visionaries and according to CASA should be able to foresee all future events.

 

 

[facthunter]

Taken a step further, with the CASA philosophy why wouldn't an instructor who signed out a pilot be responsible for his subsequent errors in the future. ( I shouldn't have written this. They'll probably do it) Nev.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

In my own Unqualified opinion, that probably depends on whether a subsequent "error" was due to the Pilot not having been taught the skills needed, whether those skills are part of the CASA or RAAus Pilot curriculum (which removes responsibility of scope from the instructor), or whether the Pilot chose not to use the skills which had been taught . . . this could go on for ever. There's probably a whole host of other factors to consider too.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Ozzie,

 

That is exactly what every other country (that I have ever dealt with) requires. At the time the "return to service" document (in our case, a Maintenance Release) is signed, the signatory is certifying that the aircraft meets the type certification standards, as in the (FAA) Type Certification Data Sheet, plus any ADs and STCs applicable.

 

Once out the hangar door, all bets are off.

 

Speaking of defects, there are some interesting defects in the new maintenance regulations, and the only reason they don't apply to GA is a couple of savings clauses. The new rules move Australia even further away from ICAO and the rest of the world than previous.

 

Even the definition of maintenance (carried over from the old regulations, and it was intended to rectify it, but it didn't happen) is different to ICAO/CA/NZ/FAA/EASA.

 

Regards,

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Bill. In Canada, with our ultralights, once a person owns one they are responsible for its maintenance. Transport Canada, when it set out the regulations for ultralights, specified this. Doesn't matter if an AME worked on it. Doesn't matter if it is falling to pieces. If the wing falls off 2 minutes after being bought, that is the owner's problem. I like that because it puts the onus on the owner to make sure all is well. We have 2 types of ultralights: AULA (advanced) and BULA (basic). IN Basic you can do anything you wish to the plane. In advanced, you need to be in compliance with the manufacturer on major components. We have no annuals, no TBOs, and so on. The idea was to keep the costs down.